*I've given this post a provocative title just to jolt our minds but please read on.
Ever since I'm back home from Turin, had developed a bad cough that disrupts my sleep for almost a week now. I have also decided not to go on with my early retirement idea and will work until my retirement age of 60. This is much due to financial commitments and putting food on the table for the family. If possible, I would like to work until I'm 70 since my thinking faculty is still reliable though my physique has gone weaker. On the problems of the institute, I try not to think about it too much and leave this to the younger heads of laboratory. I think they will handle it well with incoming support from the industries. The new institute that they hope to pursue is very much different from the INSPEM that we know and I hope they succeed. I knew Dr. Rezal had the industry support for a cryptology institute even before the current restructuring exercise; the former director (Rezal's father) Prof. Dato' Kamel had told me of the idea during the transition period of the incoming second INSPEM director. I told him at the time that such intention may make INSPEM weaker and pleaded then for it not to happen. Anyway, I will play a minimal role from now on but will still support this new initiative in the hope that there is room for quantum information science to grow within the context of information security. Another aspect I would like to see developed in this new institute is data science for which my interest in this is complex networks and topological data analysis. Thus, my younger theorist colleagues may want to consider to be part of this new institute with this possible venture of these areas. It is however their choice but I would say having industries supporting the institute would be the main attraction. Another thing I need to say theoretical physics at the department will still be in the minority and may not receive much attention for some time. In fact recently I found out a junior physics lecturer started to discourage my own student to pursue theoretical physics and I find this very disappointing.
Another thing that I find encouraging coming out from this restructuring exercise that there is a possible cultural transition from simply R&D to L&D especially for our research officers. You will probably heard of L&D from Mah Kam Lin's talk in our 'Topics in Data Science' event. L&D is life and death alluding to the survival of businesses (note: L&D can also mean learning & development and I don't mean this). Below is an interview with Mah Kam Lin where she mentioned L&D.
Prof. Kuru told me that she has a physics background. The reason this was highlighted is perhaps due to some perception that looks down on physicists (and I'm not trying to project a superior image of physicists).
With all the focus in management problems recently, I also got to be interested in how our scientific thinking can help us understand human problems better. This leads me to another person with philosophy training grounded in physics, namely Dave Snowden. I have been watching quite a few of his videos. Here is one that gets up close with his ideas:
Here is another which is more technical (but conceptual) that may has relevance to our situation today:
Going back to the institute; I hope given that INSPEM is more or less closing down, we should draw lessons from the whole affair. Do note that the institute is closing down not due to its performance but more on the redundancy perception (rightly or wrongly) with the Maths Department. And there is of course politics. I hope those who are pursuing the new institute will take heed of these lessons. INSPEM will certainly be missed. Deep in my heart, however, I hope that sometime in the (far) future, there will be another opportunity of setting up a research institute that encourages fundamental and foundational research, exploring sophisticated abstract technical ideas, charting new territories of mathematical sciences. And when given such opportunity, a good question for ourselves is "Do we deserve such an institute?"
Friday, April 26, 2019
Monday, April 22, 2019
A (Bad) Dream
After getting back from Turin, I experienced a severe bad back and cough. By the time I get to KLIA (no name change yet), I was feverish and I had to lie down at the airport to get some strength back. So most of the Sunday, I stayed in bed resting, trying to get my body back to normal; sleeping and waking up at odd hours.
At one stage, I woke myself up to a bad dream. I just came back from a long trip abroad. As I walked into the office, I found everything misplaced, including the stairs! Tried to make sense of the situation (in the dream), I managed myself to get into the office and saw many strangers there. I yelled "What is going on here?" Somehow I understood these strangers are simply moving agents trying to pack up things due to the closure of the institute. I felt terribly frustrated about this as no one consulted me on the matter. Then I woke up.
I hope this will not happen when I go to work this Tuesday. Today, I'm taking leave to help lessen my back pain. But I guess from the dream, the pain is much less from the pain of losing INSPEM (even if I'm not really wanted there). Yes, all the years spent there and ended up with nothing.
At one stage, I woke myself up to a bad dream. I just came back from a long trip abroad. As I walked into the office, I found everything misplaced, including the stairs! Tried to make sense of the situation (in the dream), I managed myself to get into the office and saw many strangers there. I yelled "What is going on here?" Somehow I understood these strangers are simply moving agents trying to pack up things due to the closure of the institute. I felt terribly frustrated about this as no one consulted me on the matter. Then I woke up.
I hope this will not happen when I go to work this Tuesday. Today, I'm taking leave to help lessen my back pain. But I guess from the dream, the pain is much less from the pain of losing INSPEM (even if I'm not really wanted there). Yes, all the years spent there and ended up with nothing.
Saturday, April 20, 2019
Torino, 14-19 April 2019
Ever since I've met Prof. Lamberto Rondoni, particularly after the inauguration of Malaysia-Italy Centre of Excellence for Mathematical Sciences (MICEMS), I had my mind set to visit Turin and Politecnico di Torino. It was only three years later that it got realised when there was surplus funds from Erasmus+ that funded staff training. The trip to Turin came at however an unfortunate time; the weekend I was flying to Turin was the weekend that the university had the transformation workshop. I had to leave it to my younger heads of laboratory to present a case for INSPEM. Had kept my mobile phone on with international data roaming to receive updates.
My flight to Turin had two stop overs, Singapore and Frankfurt. Had to opt for this for a cheaper fare. Luckily the luggage went straight to Turin. The flight from Singapore to Frankfurt was about 12 hours long and we experienced some turbulence along the way. At Frankfurt, I received the news that the management had decided to close down INSPEM and be transformed as one research centre of excellence in the Faculty of Science. While I anticipated such result, I was still disappointed with the outcome for reasons that I have mentioned in the precious posts. On the flight to Turin, I was thinking on what should I be saying to Prof. Rondoni. MICEMS, however, is independent of INSPEM and the closure of INSPEM should not in principle affect MICEMS. Nevertheless how MICEMS is going to be placed within all these transformations is still uncertain. During the flight then, saw the sceneries of the Alps (see below), while thinking deeply of how much effort we have put in INSPEM and MICEMS.
On reaching Turin, took a cab to the University Residence at Paolo Borsellino (costing 31.50 Euros). Took a while activating my International Data Roaming before taking the keys to my room.
Rested a little before meeting up with our Research Fellow Santo Banerjee. We took a walk and I told him about INSPEM closing down. He was certainly visibly upset and stopped our walk, perhaps digesting implications for his position at the institute. I told him we have yet to discuss on migration of staff and there is no clear cut picture for this. We stopped at a park to take a rest before walking back to our residence.
The next day, we are supposed to meet Prof. Rondoni at Valentino Castle before he goes to University of Turin (nearby) for some lectures.
Lamberto gave a quick history of the castle which also housed the Faculty of Architecture. He brought us to some places which are not open to the public. We saw the meeting rooms of the Faculty (still being used).
Below is the ceiling of the Faculty of Architecture Dean's office.
At the time, they were preparing for Leonardo da Vinci exhibition due to be opened that afternoon. So we got a quick pre-exhibition glimpse of the displays. We saw some handwritten manuscripts by da Vinci and even some hand-built models of da Vinci. It was rather tempting to take photos of them but I did not, out of respect. Later I regretted it.
After the meet, we went to the International Office to sign some documents and then we had lunch.
While waiting for Lamberto, later that day, we met Francesco Malaspina, an algebraic geometer who, according to Santo, knew Bengali. We also met a collaborator of Prof. Rondoni, Paolo Mario de Gregorio during our discussion with him. Our discussions were mainly about INSPEM and MICEMS, some of which I should not disclose but he was concerned about the position of Santo due to INSPEM's closure.
The next day, I met INSPEM's mobility students who just arrived the day before.
We (me and Santo) also got our passes for our office (shared with others). Then we had lunch.
Later in the evening, we had discussions but more on scientific matters. We were contemplating of getting some international or private grants. I mention about the possible venture of using Nambu brackets to help quantize chaotic systems, which may be of use to semiconductor lasers (where I send some related news to Santo the next day). Then Lamberto asked to prepare a talk for the idea, the next day.
The next morning, I received another news about the possibility of INSPEM 'not being closed'. It would be based on the proposal of INSPEM 2.0 that Rezal (our head of lab) had presented on the Sunday workshop. Told Santo and Lamberto about this and they were happy about the news. In fact Santo immediately mentioned that he may proceed with the research proposal with Marco Pizzi of Altek Group. We (me and Santo as Lamberto had lunch appointment with the Vice Rector) then had lunch.
Much later that evening, I gave a talk on quantization and Nambu brackets. But I had to stop before the place I wanted to finish as it was getting late.
There were points about constraints and quantization raised by Lamberto that I could not answer and I was curious on how he could 'circumvent' this point in an earlier work he mentioned using Dirac brackets. He mentioned he had some notes on this and I was looking forward to see this.
The next day we are supposed to continue the discussion but early that morning, I received more messages, one of which slighted me off. It seems that I was sidelined from any further discussion on a new institute that was suggested to replace INSPEM. While I have mentioned that I prefer not to be in the 'new management' if there is one, I am still interested to see what goes into the new institute researchwise and there is of course MICEMS interest to be taken care of. It reminded me of the days before the formation of INSPEM and I went to form (unknowingly) Laboratory of Theoretical Studies in ITMA, only to find out that INSPEM was formed a few months after. Later this lab is closed down despite the message that I got was to merge.
So for that morning, I wasn't in the mood for discussion. We discussed only general matters. Lamberto gave me some references for his work but he could not find his notes. I had also left my notes in my room after reading his review article on transient fluctuations and steady-state fluctuations that are relevant to our discussions yesterday. Then Santo left to catch a flight in Milan and I simply waited for our lunch. At lunch (together with Paolo), I almost took pasta with meat in it but Lamberto generously bought me another pasta dish which is vegetarian. After lunch I said goodbye to Lamberto and Paolo but my mind was occupied.
Back in the room, I pondered on the situation. It seems clear that I'm not wanted in the new set-up. Even with INSPEM, sometimes I felt like I'm an outsider and it did not make my duties any easier. I hated the politics. Chatted with my other half, whether I should apply for early retirement. We have always discussed about this each time I'm stressed out with work problems. Should I do it? I know I have some pending duties with many students ungraduated yet and I do wish that I am able to do more work with MICEMS. I guess I'll wait until I reach home to decide on matters.
Today is Good Friday which is supposed to be a holiday (though some offices are not closed and Lamberto told me he was coming to office). However I have to checked out at 10am from the residence. I felt I should just check out and go straight to the airport. The cab now costs 34.50 Euros. At the Turin airport, I started to write this post (and conitinued in Munich) since I had so much time before the flight.
My flight to Turin had two stop overs, Singapore and Frankfurt. Had to opt for this for a cheaper fare. Luckily the luggage went straight to Turin. The flight from Singapore to Frankfurt was about 12 hours long and we experienced some turbulence along the way. At Frankfurt, I received the news that the management had decided to close down INSPEM and be transformed as one research centre of excellence in the Faculty of Science. While I anticipated such result, I was still disappointed with the outcome for reasons that I have mentioned in the precious posts. On the flight to Turin, I was thinking on what should I be saying to Prof. Rondoni. MICEMS, however, is independent of INSPEM and the closure of INSPEM should not in principle affect MICEMS. Nevertheless how MICEMS is going to be placed within all these transformations is still uncertain. During the flight then, saw the sceneries of the Alps (see below), while thinking deeply of how much effort we have put in INSPEM and MICEMS.
On reaching Turin, took a cab to the University Residence at Paolo Borsellino (costing 31.50 Euros). Took a while activating my International Data Roaming before taking the keys to my room.
Rested a little before meeting up with our Research Fellow Santo Banerjee. We took a walk and I told him about INSPEM closing down. He was certainly visibly upset and stopped our walk, perhaps digesting implications for his position at the institute. I told him we have yet to discuss on migration of staff and there is no clear cut picture for this. We stopped at a park to take a rest before walking back to our residence.
The next day, we are supposed to meet Prof. Rondoni at Valentino Castle before he goes to University of Turin (nearby) for some lectures.
Lamberto gave a quick history of the castle which also housed the Faculty of Architecture. He brought us to some places which are not open to the public. We saw the meeting rooms of the Faculty (still being used).
Below is the ceiling of the Faculty of Architecture Dean's office.
At the time, they were preparing for Leonardo da Vinci exhibition due to be opened that afternoon. So we got a quick pre-exhibition glimpse of the displays. We saw some handwritten manuscripts by da Vinci and even some hand-built models of da Vinci. It was rather tempting to take photos of them but I did not, out of respect. Later I regretted it.
After the meet, we went to the International Office to sign some documents and then we had lunch.
While waiting for Lamberto, later that day, we met Francesco Malaspina, an algebraic geometer who, according to Santo, knew Bengali. We also met a collaborator of Prof. Rondoni, Paolo Mario de Gregorio during our discussion with him. Our discussions were mainly about INSPEM and MICEMS, some of which I should not disclose but he was concerned about the position of Santo due to INSPEM's closure.
The next day, I met INSPEM's mobility students who just arrived the day before.
We (me and Santo) also got our passes for our office (shared with others). Then we had lunch.
Later in the evening, we had discussions but more on scientific matters. We were contemplating of getting some international or private grants. I mention about the possible venture of using Nambu brackets to help quantize chaotic systems, which may be of use to semiconductor lasers (where I send some related news to Santo the next day). Then Lamberto asked to prepare a talk for the idea, the next day.
The next morning, I received another news about the possibility of INSPEM 'not being closed'. It would be based on the proposal of INSPEM 2.0 that Rezal (our head of lab) had presented on the Sunday workshop. Told Santo and Lamberto about this and they were happy about the news. In fact Santo immediately mentioned that he may proceed with the research proposal with Marco Pizzi of Altek Group. We (me and Santo as Lamberto had lunch appointment with the Vice Rector) then had lunch.
Much later that evening, I gave a talk on quantization and Nambu brackets. But I had to stop before the place I wanted to finish as it was getting late.
There were points about constraints and quantization raised by Lamberto that I could not answer and I was curious on how he could 'circumvent' this point in an earlier work he mentioned using Dirac brackets. He mentioned he had some notes on this and I was looking forward to see this.
The next day we are supposed to continue the discussion but early that morning, I received more messages, one of which slighted me off. It seems that I was sidelined from any further discussion on a new institute that was suggested to replace INSPEM. While I have mentioned that I prefer not to be in the 'new management' if there is one, I am still interested to see what goes into the new institute researchwise and there is of course MICEMS interest to be taken care of. It reminded me of the days before the formation of INSPEM and I went to form (unknowingly) Laboratory of Theoretical Studies in ITMA, only to find out that INSPEM was formed a few months after. Later this lab is closed down despite the message that I got was to merge.
So for that morning, I wasn't in the mood for discussion. We discussed only general matters. Lamberto gave me some references for his work but he could not find his notes. I had also left my notes in my room after reading his review article on transient fluctuations and steady-state fluctuations that are relevant to our discussions yesterday. Then Santo left to catch a flight in Milan and I simply waited for our lunch. At lunch (together with Paolo), I almost took pasta with meat in it but Lamberto generously bought me another pasta dish which is vegetarian. After lunch I said goodbye to Lamberto and Paolo but my mind was occupied.
Back in the room, I pondered on the situation. It seems clear that I'm not wanted in the new set-up. Even with INSPEM, sometimes I felt like I'm an outsider and it did not make my duties any easier. I hated the politics. Chatted with my other half, whether I should apply for early retirement. We have always discussed about this each time I'm stressed out with work problems. Should I do it? I know I have some pending duties with many students ungraduated yet and I do wish that I am able to do more work with MICEMS. I guess I'll wait until I reach home to decide on matters.
Today is Good Friday which is supposed to be a holiday (though some offices are not closed and Lamberto told me he was coming to office). However I have to checked out at 10am from the residence. I felt I should just check out and go straight to the airport. The cab now costs 34.50 Euros. At the Turin airport, I started to write this post (and conitinued in Munich) since I had so much time before the flight.
Friday, April 12, 2019
The Week That Had Me Worried
From last week, I thought I would be spending this week to prepare for some research ideas to bring over to Turin. Instead, I spent much of this week, planning and defending our research institute in mathematical sciences. Got myself involved in discussions that are very volatile - once something is agreed upon, such decision will probably change in the next few hours. All of these are related to the fact the whole university is embarking on a huge transformation programme. Why is this happening, I am not particularly clear, though the word that seems to go around is essentially cost-saving and effective use of human resource. However, I am puzzled why measures for cost-saving and effective human resource cannot be done without making huge changes to the academic structure. When people argue that one needs to be adaptable to the changing times, there are usually assumptions underlying them. One should pose questions on what are the things changing and what are the things need to be adapted? Another argument that is always put forward to me in recent times as a justification for change is that people prefer the status quo but again what are the assumptions? I certainly do not want status quo if it means the lackadaisical environment that we had about twenty to thirty years ago - in fact, then I was screaming for change. But what is the situation now, we have in some way, improve researchwise and academically (comparing to the old times) over the years incrementally (of course it is not perfect). Disturbing the (academic) structure in such huge way, will put us in a far-from-equilibrium situation (in physics language) and if uncontrollable, it may end up in an undesirable state. Even if it is under control, it may take time for the system to relax back into a new equilibrium state. Take for instance the Putra Global 200 (PG200) aspiration which is only a year away. With the huge changes under way, this will put PG200 achievement at a great risk. Of course, I'm looking at this externally; maybe there are things that I do not know.
Going back to the institute, I can safely say that the institute has contributed substantially to the research ecosystem of mathematical sciences and I have facts and figures to support this. Somehow this is ignored and we are criticised for other aspects instead. We are ready to address these criticisms given the opportunity. In fact the last week or so, we have been brainstorming on some changes that we could do (and some of these even surprised me). We were then told that we could come up with many new ideas but this comes with uncertainties and risks, perhaps doubting that we could do it. I could have retorted that the huge imminent change brings even greater uncertainties and risks. Let us suppose that we do want to minimise the 'risk' and that the institute needs to change in the specified way that they wished for. Then I would say, whatever criteria and conditions that they use on our institute, should equally apply to others. Unfortunately I don't think it is so. We have been cherry-picked and that there was a campaign against us from the beginning. So it all boils down to politics. I have no wish to be involved in such politics. As far as I am concerned, we have been doing the job as we were asked to do without interfering others. It is very disappointing to see such politics in the academia and I prefer not to be in such environment. I hope those involved will be equally responsible when such political-play goes south as much as they had pushed for the situation.
To my colleagues in the institute, thanks for all the support you have given me and all the best in your future undertakings. For now I prefer to concentrate on the science.
Going back to the institute, I can safely say that the institute has contributed substantially to the research ecosystem of mathematical sciences and I have facts and figures to support this. Somehow this is ignored and we are criticised for other aspects instead. We are ready to address these criticisms given the opportunity. In fact the last week or so, we have been brainstorming on some changes that we could do (and some of these even surprised me). We were then told that we could come up with many new ideas but this comes with uncertainties and risks, perhaps doubting that we could do it. I could have retorted that the huge imminent change brings even greater uncertainties and risks. Let us suppose that we do want to minimise the 'risk' and that the institute needs to change in the specified way that they wished for. Then I would say, whatever criteria and conditions that they use on our institute, should equally apply to others. Unfortunately I don't think it is so. We have been cherry-picked and that there was a campaign against us from the beginning. So it all boils down to politics. I have no wish to be involved in such politics. As far as I am concerned, we have been doing the job as we were asked to do without interfering others. It is very disappointing to see such politics in the academia and I prefer not to be in such environment. I hope those involved will be equally responsible when such political-play goes south as much as they had pushed for the situation.
To my colleagues in the institute, thanks for all the support you have given me and all the best in your future undertakings. For now I prefer to concentrate on the science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)