by Thomas Sim, 4 Oct 2003
Dear Matthew,
Again, I must agree with you that most of the reasons you gave were inline and pertinent to the irony and distress of the qualification which ICSA members hold in Malaysia. However, I have three questions in mind.
1) How did you end up doing ICSA in the first place? Why didn't you do ACCA from start?
2) Are you practising as a company secretary? If not, why not?
3) What you think would 'bring in the dollars'? Not as company sec?
Thanks, and below are my views:
To me, MAICSA is just another association (like ACCA Malaysia, MICPA, or MIA). It is different because it dedicates to promote Chartered Secretarialship and not others. It should be viewed as a niche, rather than a - semua sapu - qualification. This to you is a disadvantage because it is not a finance/accounting qualification. In fact, it never was and never will be (MAICSA, pls correct me, if otherwise). In the UK, lawyers specialise by joining ICSA. It is as what you say, 'threw a stone LLB' I suppose. In sales (which I have 10 years of experience), success is usually by focus. This, I think ICSA and MAICSA are doing the right thing. As of MAICSA being on a different agenda from ICSA UK, I am sorry, I don't agree with you.
More people make more noises. This is the dilemma of professional bodies. On one hand, the employment opportunity is limited, on the other, you need members to promote the existence of the profession. I think MAICSA has this issue in the old days. That was why it introduced ICSM to promote non-members to join the profession. Similarly, you felt sad by saying that 'threw a stone, you bound to hit a member of ACCA, CIMA, etc...'. This is a bit self-centred to me (apology if you didn't mean that) because ICSA or MAICSA doesn't exist for you or me, they look after the whole profession. You need people to support your mission. That, I believe is also a reason that ICSA and MAICSA allows exemptions to final stage which, to you is 'no standard'. Lets look at ICAEW, it has become too small now compared to ACCA or CIMA. So what good does it do to its members?
Sadly, Malaysia has its own political and social reason to limit public education in the old days. Many chinese students who didn't make to local uni ended up doing programmes like ACCA, CIMA or ICSA, primarily at TAR College. I almost did. Now, there are so many twining programmes that nobody wants to study in public uni for a perceived 'wrong' choice of course. The difference is that now, people go the easy way out by doing the 'milking money' twining programmes. Who wants to do difficult programmes like ACCA, CIMA, ICSA or CIM? Obviously it is - last time all so 'Laku' how-come now not 'Laku' at all?
The reason of reduced student is probably felt by most professional bodies. I believe eventually these bodies would have to focus on postgraduate standard rather than as undergraduate degree, eg MBA by ACCA? More so now that MIA is introducing the 'qualifying exam' for these graduates. It is a global trend. Each body promotes its own course of existence.
Nevertheless, I believe this trend is good. It is by competition that only the good candidates would prevail in the profession. We don't need 'rubber stamping' accountants, auditors or secretaries anymore. To restrict or limit is, to me - 'no balls!'.
Another issue is the 'focus profession'. This, to you is a disadvantage. Anyway, I am not practicing so I don't know. Notwithstanding, I know that 'dollars' is good only if you are specialist in what you do. This is a universal rule. Be it in sales, in medicine, in law or selling Nasi Lemak by the road side. I believe it is not a defect of 'Chartered Secretarialship' by itself. On the contrary, it is our advantage. Likewise, I strongly believe that CIMA is positioning itself to be a prestigious 'Management Accounting Specialist' rather than just another accountant. To me, ACCA graduates take up CIMA for that edge. CFA is another example. Again, it is a global trend.
As for your questions:
No, I would not go further in clinical biochemistry because I don't like to live in a lab. I like interacting with people. This, I learned from the University of Hardknock.
Yes, I share your view on MBA, esp with the reason of 'milking' for money. In its place, I recommend ICSA, even after having factored its cost advantage. However, if one day employers are blinded with MBAs, we might just have to take it! Trust me, it is always perception that counts.
Although a qualification is important, I still believe 'Substance over Form'.
Yours sincerely,
Thomas Sim
No comments:
Post a Comment