Najib called to account for Sedition Act by Commonwealth lawyers

The Malaysian Insider

15 October 2014

Ahead of the Malaysian Bar’s walk to protest the Sedition Act tomorrow, the German Federal Bar has expressed concern over the use of the law in a letter to Datuk Seri Najib Razak, asking the prime minister for his stand on its widespread against the government’s critics.

The German Bar’s Dr Martin Abend, in a letter dated yesterday, noted that the act had been applied increasingly in Malaysia in the last few months, including against lawyers for voicing their legal opinions.

Abend said that in one particular case, a lawyer’s house was searched and his mobile phone and his laptop seized.

“The German Federal Bar is deeply concerned about these current developments in Malaysia.

“We kindly ask you to inform us if the information available to us is correct and how you view the situation,” Abend said in the letter which was posted on the Malaysian Bar’s website.

He also urged Najib to ensure that the Sedition Act would not be applied to facts relating to the freedom of expression.

“In accordance with the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, lawyers, just like any other citizen, shall have the right to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights”.

These principles also provide that lawyers must be able to “perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference”.

“Furthermore, “the State must ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference,” Martin wrote.

He also called on the prime minister to ensure that the “Walk for Peace and Freedom 2014” scheduled by the Malaysian Bar tomorrow would be allowed to progress peacefully.

Legal associations from other countries have also lent their support to the protest tomorrow.

Bar associations of New Zealand, Australia, Sri Lanka and Nepal, and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association sent letters which were posted to the Malaysian Bar’s website.

The UK Law Society also wrote a letter to Najib, expressing concern over continued use of the colonial-era law.

Its president Andrew Caplen said they were concerned about the use of the act to against lawyers in the course of conducting of their legitimate professional duties and the effect of the act on freedom of expression in Malaysia.

Caplen in his letter dated October 2, called on the Malaysian government to cease any investigations and prosecution’s under the act and to uphold its commitment of 2012 to review and repeal the act.

Caplen also noted the sedition cases brought against lawyer Edmund Bon and the late Karpal Singh, also a lawyer.

Law professors Dr Azmi Sharom and Dr Abdul Aziz Bari are also among those who have come under the Sedition Act.

The Korean Bar Association also noted in a statement that there were continuous cases of persons being unreasonably arrested, detained and prosecuted for voicing their news and opinions on matters related to law and the legal system.

As such, it called on the government to cease its disproportionate use of police powers and abuse of discretion under the Sedition Act.

The lawyers’ march to protest the act will begin at Padang Merbok and move to the Parliament building at 10.30am tomorrow. – October 15, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 16 October 2014, 7:37 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Law & Order
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Open memorandum to the Prime Minister of Malaysia — Malaysian Bar

Malay Mail Online

OCTOBER 16, 2014

1.   The Malaysian Bar has walked to Parliament today as part of our on-going campaign for the repeal of the Sedition Act 1948.  It is in order to rid ourselves of an unjust law and unneeded crutch, and for the realisation of a better Malaysia.

2.   The Malaysian Bar’s walk today is called the “Walk for Peace and Freedom” because we wish to promote a peace anchored by bonds of unity, lasting harmony and true mutual respect amongst Malaysians.  We walk for the freedom from fear and intimidation; freedom from extremism; freedom from divisiveness; freedom from exploitation for personal, sectarian and selfish gains; freedom to question, criticise, discuss and debate; freedom to learn; and freedom to grow and mature.

3.   The Sedition Act 1948 is inherently flawed.  It is designed to subjugate, suppress and oppress.  It is NOT designed to promote peace, harmony and unity.  As a piece of criminal legislation, it is repugnant to the rule of law because it punishes freedom of speech and expression of thought by the use of imprecise and ill-defined offences.  It does not require any proof of ill intention or intention to create disorder.  Truth is not a defense.  Hence, the Sedition Act 1948 in fact criminalises the truth.

4.   The Walk for Peace and Freedom is part of the Malaysian Bar’s response to Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak’s call for all right thinking and moderate Malaysians to stand up and speak out.  The Malaysian Bar walks so as to give voice to such Malaysians.

Malaysia’s Transformation

5.   On 3 April 2009, when Dato’ Sri Najib Razak became Prime Minister, he announced a series of freedom-enlarging measures.  He removed the temporary ban on two news publications.  He released 13 detainees from detention under the Internal Security Act 1960.  He announced the conducting of a comprehensive review of the Internal Security Act 1960.  He declared that “[t]hese decisions are timely as we move to enhance the confidence of our citizens in those entrusted with maintaining peace, law and order, while recognizing the need to remain vigilant of the very real security threats we continue to face as a young nation.”1

6.   On the eve of Malaysia Day 2011, 15 September 2011, Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak took the bold step of announcing that the Internal Security Act 1960 and three Emergency Declarations would be repealed at the next sitting of the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara.  The Banishment Act 1959 and the Restricted Residence Act 1933 would also be repealed.  He also announced that the government would amend the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 to do away with annual printing and publishing permits.  The Police Act 1967 would be amended to allow for freedom of assembly, wherein the requirement for a permit or permission to assemble in public would be repealed.  These announcements were implemented.

7.   Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak had in April 2012 also introduced amendments to the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 to allow for a broader measure of freedom of expression and association by university students.  These came into force in August 2012.

8.   Following on from these significant developments, Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak had on 11 July 2012 announced that the government would repeal the Sedition Act 1948 and replace it with a National Harmony Act.  He stated the following in his speech delivered at the “Majlis Makan Malam Jabatan Peguam Negara Bersama YAB Perdana Menteri”:

“Kerajaan telah membuat keputusan agar Akta Hasutan 1948 dimansuhkan dan digantikan dengan suatu rang undang undang yang dikenali sebagai Akta Keharmonian Nasional.  Keputusan menggantikan Akta Hasutan dibuat kerana kita mahu mencari mekanisme yang dapat menentukan keseimbangan terbaik diantara keperluan menjamin kebebasan bersuara setiap warganegara sesuai dan selaras dengan peruntukan dan jaminan yang terkandung di dalam Perlembangan Pesekutuan dan keperluan untuk menangani kompleksiti kemajmukan yang wujud dinegara ini.  With this new Act we would be better equipped to manage our national fault lines. It would also help to strengthen national cohesion by protecting national unity and nurturing religious harmony….

Kerajaan sedar bahawa umum menganggap Akta Hasutan 1948 sebagai alat kerajaan untuk merencatkan tindakan dan pandangan yang tidak sealiran dengan kerajaan.  Walaupun anggapan sedemikian adalah tidak berasas sama sekali, kita perlu menghapuskan persepsi tersebut.  Lantaran itu, peruntukan-peruntukan baru ini tidak akan menghalang rakyat untuk mengkritik kerajaan dan pentadbiran keadilan….

Pada analisis akhirnya saya teringat kepada pendapat ahli falsafah tersohor Britain, John Locke: “The end of law is, not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom”.  Second Treatise Of Civil Government (1690)….

Melalui pemansuhan dan penggubalan undang-undang yang sedang berjalan, kerajaan mahu memastikan ruang demokratik yang mencukupi disediakan untuk perbezaan pendapat serta persaingan idea.  Pucuk pangkalnya, kita mahu mencipta sebuah Malaysia di mana prinsip hak asasi manusia dijunjung, kebebasan individu untuk menyatakan pendapat secara terbuka diraikan, seraya kepentingan individu dan komuniti diimbangi.”

9.   The Malaysian Bar supports Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak’s programme of progressive and systematic reform and political transformation as set out above.  His thinking and instincts are correct, and we call upon Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak to remain steadfast and to persevere and continue with them.

Evils of the Sedition Act 1948

10. In this regard, we would point out that the Sedition Act 1948, as with its predecessor the Sedition Ordinance, was conceived by our then colonial masters and used as an instrument of oppression.  It is an archaic and repressive law, and is the antithesis of democracy, rule of law, justice and human rights.

11. The Sedition Act 1948 has been used to stifle speech and expression, to shut out contrary views and voices, to quell dissent and opposition, to constrict and deny democratic space, and to oppress and suppress Malaysians.

12. The Sedition Act 1948 has been justified on the premise that there are matters that are too sensitive to address, speak about or debate; and that this particular legislation is therefore required to ensure and maintain harmony, unity and public order.  Our 57 years of “Merdeka” has clearly shown this to be a myth.

13. The Sedition Act 1948 has instead served to deter or prevent important issues from being properly and genuinely addressed.  Some of these issues are effectively “swept under the carpet” and allowed to fester.  This legislation serves to perpetuate and entrench the racial, religious and other fault lines in our nation. It thus undermines and is counter-productive to efforts to build lasting peace and harmony, strong bonds of unity and real mutual respect in Malaysia.

14. It is no answer to say that we could improve on its use and implementation to avoid abuse. Our history of such oppressive laws, including the Internal Security Act 1960 (since repealed), has shown us that such laws are frequently abused irrespective of their stated purpose. The recent “sedition blitz” where the Sedition Act 1948 has been used to probe and/or prosecute students, law academics, lawyers, a journalist, members of civil society, Members of Parliament and State Assemblypersons is a glaring example of such abuse. To compound the problem, there are clear instances of selective prosecution. The lesson we learn is that the justness in the use of such laws cannot be dependent on the good faith of the authorities. Laws must in themselves be good and just. The Sedition Act 1948 is not such a law.

15. The statements of Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak on his 1Malaysia blog dated 7 August 2012 and 4 April 2013 are to the Malaysian Bar an express recognition by the Malaysian Government that the Sedition Act 1948 is indeed an obsolete and antiquated law that is no longer suitable, relevant or consonant with the times.

An Inclusive Malaysia

16. The Malaysian Bar further recalls the speech of Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak at the United Nations General Assembly in New York City on 26 September 2014 where he said:

“[W]e must pursue a different kind of politics…We must break the cycle where one group gains power only to wield it against the other.  Where marginalisation leads to radicalisation, as people lose confidence in the state’s ability to provide both security and co-existence.  Individuals and ethnic and religious groups need to feel they have a stake in a nation’s success, not its failure.  So we should commit to more inclusive politics.”

17. In the same speech, Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak also said that, “By demonstrating moderation in the political process, we can ensure no-one is left outside society.”

18. The Malaysian Bar could not agree more with Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak’s words on “inclusive politics”.  The fundamental freedoms of speech and expression, giving voice to thoughts and ideas, as well as the right to information, are fundamental attributes of a vibrant and thriving democracy, and that are essential for the development, progress and growth of a nation.  It is robust debate, diversity of opinion and education that would ultimately promote, inculcate and maintain true and enduring unity, goodwill and mutual respect amongst Malaysians.

19. In the same speech at the United Nations, Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak said that, “Malaysia stands ready to share its experience of marginalising extremism, maintaining a multi-religious country, where different faiths coexist and prosper.”

20. It cannot be that Malaysia’s sharing of its experience in fostering moderation is that of restricting freedom of speech and expression, arresting, investigating, intimidating and charging individuals under the Sedition Act 1948.  It is precisely the clamping down on views, discourse and expression, and restricting democratic space, under the guise of the Sedition Act 1948, that has the effect of pandering to and encouraging extremist elements, and fomenting disunity and disharmony.   21. It is the use and abuse of the Sedition Act 1948 that has further served to impede the development of a mature, considerate and accepting Malaysian psyche; and perpetuates immaturity; lack of understanding; confusion and ignorance amongst Malaysians; and exploits insecurities, anxieties and fears.

22. The Sedition Act 1948 has no place in our nation, which aspires to be a modern, moderate and progressive democratic society that seeks to respect the rule of law and to engender lasting harmony and unity. The continued existence and use of this legislation only serves to prolong an addiction to a reliance on its draconian provisions as a knee-jerk reaction to expressions of purportedly sensitive issues and dissenting views.

23. We should instead be providing and promoting an environment where Malaysians engage one another in discourse and debate, questions and queries are answered, and criticisms are met with explanations; an environment where we can learn to transform into an inclusive, moderate, harmonious and unified Malaysia.

24. As the Sultan of Perak, His Royal Highness Sultan Nazrin Muizzudin Shah said in his speech at the University Malaya 53rd Convocation held on 13 October 2014,

“… Minda terbuka dapat memerdekakan jiwa individu daripada sebarang prejudis dan buruk sangka. Minda terbuka akan mengupayakan seseorang memahami malah menghormati pandangan pihak lain betapa berlainan sekalipun. Minda terbuka akan menyuburkan perasaan sabar dan toleransi untuk bersedia mendengar hujah yang berbeza betapa sekali tidak dipersetujui. Minda terbuka akan memberikan ruang untuk membolehkan lahir dan tumbuhnya idea baru, menyemarakkan budaya inovasi dan menyuburkan minda kreatif. Minda terbuka adalah komponen amat penting untuk membantu mengukuhkan amalan demokrasi di dalam sesebuah negara…

…Malah minda terbuka adalah faktor yang telah memungkinkan tertubuhnya sebuah negara bangsa melalui kejayaan mencantumkan rakyat daripada pelbagai agama, negeri, kaum, budaya dan bahasa menjadi satu warga kepada sebuah negara Malaysia yang merdeka; minda terbuka juga berjaya menyatukan matlamat di kalangan sembilan Raja yang bersemayam

di istana dengan rakyat jelata di serata kota dan desa. Nyatalah minda terbuka adalah aset sementara minda tertutup adalah liabiliti.”

(Our translation: “…Open-mindedness liberates the spirit of an individual from any form of prejudice or ill-will. Open-mindedness enables one to understand and respect the views of others no matter how contrarian they may be. Open-mindedness enables patience and tolerance to be able to listen to dissenting views no matter how disagreeable they may be…

…Open-mindedness is the factor that has made possible the establishment of a nation by the successful union of people of diverse religions, states, ethnicities, culture and language to form an independent country called Malaysia; open-mindedness also achieved unity of purpose among nine Rajas who reside in the palace with the citizens of all the cities and the countryside. Clearly, open-mindedness is an asset whereas close- mindedness is a liability.”)

Towards a Peaceful, United and Harmonious Malaysia

25. Lasting harmony and unity requires a lot of hard work, patience, understanding and education; not suppression, prosecution and punishment.  Yes, the process could be long and would be painful; we will fumble and make mistakes, even serious mistakes, but we will learn and move forward.  It is folly to think and believe that the Sedition Act 1948 or laws similar to it are the answers to promote, inculcate and maintain true lasting harmony and unity.  How wrong and misconceived can we be to believe that force and punishment would engender respect and goodwill.  It instead impedes learning, discourse, growth and maturity.

26. We therefore have grave concerns that the intended National Harmony Act should not seek to recast the Sedition Act 1948 either in whole or in part.  We recognise that no freedom is without limits.  Thus, incitements to, threats of or acts of racial or religious violence, and bringing into hatred the Royal Institution, are not acceptable in Malaysia.

27. These could, however, be dealt with by other legislation.  The intended National Harmony Act or any replacement legislation by any other name should not seek to criminalise thought, speech and expression. It should instead provide a framework that recognises and encourages interaction, discourse, debate and learning.  If there is to be a need for some measure of criminal penalties, then such measures must be limited – unlike the provisions of the Sedition Act 1948 that are imprecise and, also unlike other criminal offences, the Sedition Act 1948 does not require mens rea, that is the element of intent – the scope of the new offences must be narrowly defined and confined, and the threshold for breach must be set higher. Only threats of or incitement to, and actual ethnic or religious violence to persons or property should be criminalised, and the element of intention must be present.

28. A copy of the Resolution of the Malaysian Bar calling on the Malaysian Government to abolish the Sedition Act 1948 that was passed at its Extraordinary General Meeting on 19 September 2014 is attached for further information and reference.  The Resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority of those who attended the Extraordinary General Meeting.  The Resolution sets out in detail the way in which the Sedition Act 1948 has been abused, recounts the recent and unprecedented wave of arrests, investigations and charges, calls for the immediate repeal of the Sedition Act 1948 and the dropping of all action thereunder, and supports the proposed National Harmony legislation.

29. The Malaysian Bar recognises that Islam is the religion of the Federation and other religions may be practised in peace and harmony; the special positions of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities; and the sovereignty of the Rulers — these are clearly set out in the Federal Constitution.  The Malaysian Bar upholds the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land.  The call to repeal the Sedition Act 1948 is not a challenge to those provisions.

30. The Royal Institution, for example, is an integral and important part of our nation-building.  Malaysians look to the Rulers to be Rulers and champions for all Malaysians, and not only for a segment of Malaysians.

31. There are extremist and irresponsible elements in our society.  They spread misinformation, use intimidation and divisiness. They exploit fear and insecuritites.  They seek to drive a wedge between Malaysians and polarise us.  Do not allow them to succeed.

32. The Malaysian Bar recalls the preamble to the Rukun Negara: we are a nation dedicated to achieving a greater unity of all her peoples; seeking to maintain a democratic way of life; creating a just society; ensuring a liberal approach to Malaysia’s rich and diverse cultural traditions; and building a progressive society and nation.

33. The Malaysian Bar therefore urges Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak and the Malaysian Government to continue to commit to and promote the building of a fair, just, harmonious, unified, moderate and progressive Malaysia, and reject all forms of bigotry, racist and religious extremism; to stay the course and to abide by its original and oft-repeated public pledge and promise to repeal the Sedition Act 1948.

* Christopher Leong is the President of the Malaysian Bar Council.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 16 October 2014, 8:39 pm and is filed under
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


To end Nancy’s agony, the Cabinet tomorrow should (i) reaffirm Najib’s pledge to repeal the Sedition Act and (ii) drop all sedition charges in court

For the past ten days, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nancy Shukri has been at the receiving end of national brickbats, scorn and even opprobrium for her outrageous parliamentary answer to the Penang Chief Minister and Bagan MP Lim Guan Eng that Perkasa President Datuk Ibrahim Ali was not prosecuted for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible as Ibrahim was defending the sanctity of Islam.

Nancy added fuel to the national firestorm ignited by her answer when she ill-advisedly sought to clarify later with an even more outrageous justification – that Ibrahim’s action was protected by Article 11(4) of the Malaysian Constitution.

These are undoubtedly the worst ten days in Nancy’s political life.

To end Nancy’s agony and ordeal, the Cabinet tomorrow should step in with two decisions, firstly to reaffirm the pledge given by the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak in 2012 to repeal the colonial Sedition Act; and secondly, to drop all sedition charges and prosecutions currently in court.

The Cabinet should acknowledge the national and international outrage at the selective and discriminatory manner in which the Sedition Act had been used in the recent past to stifle legitimate criticism and dissent, whether at the level of police investigations or the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

As a result, Malaysia has suffered serious damage in international esteem and repute whether for respect of human rights or the quality of the administration of justice, which are going to be adversely reflected in major drops in Malaysia’s rankings in a whole spectrum of human rights,  rule of law and justice indices  in coming months and years.

If Malaysia is serious in wanting to join the rank of the developed countries in the year 2020, we cannot be indifferent to these developments as they concern the qualities and conditions which determine whether a country can be regarded as a developed nation.

Cabinet Ministers should not mock or scorn the nation’s lawyers for the Bar Council’s historic Walk for Peace and Freedom in opposition to the Sedition Act but should give it serious consideration and  put the Bar Council’s memorandum on the Cabinet agenda tomorrow.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 16 October 2014, 4:08 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Law & Order
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What is the rankings’ message for varsities?

By Dr I Lourdesamy

Malaysiakini

Oct 15, 2014

The Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings 2014-2015 has caused some concern in Malaysia, and rightly so. There is not a single Malaysian university in the top 400 positions. What is more discomforting is the decision of Universiti Malaya (UM) and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) to opt out from participating in the THE ranking exercise. They argue that the THE ranking is less relevant to their direction and focus.

They are featured in the QS World University Rankings, which seems to present a more favourable picture of their performance. Their decision to accept the QS ratings and reject the THE ratings has only compounded the problem, for it seems to reflect a lack of academic honesty. At one time UM was on the THE list but as its rankings began to fall, UM decided not to participate in the survey.

Several criticisms have been levelled at Malaysian universities for their poor showing in international rankings of educational institutions. Malaysian universities are constantly compared with Singapore where the National University of Singapore (NUS) secured a world ranking of 25 in the THE list for 2014-2015 and Nanyang Technological University was placed 61.

Several universities in East Asia have also shown high rankings, with the University of Tokyo leading the pack at position 23.

What is the message for Malaysian universities, especially for UM which started off at the same time as NUS?

While I agree with many of the criticisms and concerns expressed, I would content that a more balanced understanding of university rankings is needed. Leaving aside the question of methodology used in ranking universities and the plethora of rankings that exist, the critical question is: What do the rankings mean?

What interpretation can we attach to them? It is obvious that institutions that everyone accepts as being good are on the top of the list. There is no dispute about the quality of universities like Caltech, Harvard, MIT, Oxford and other similar institutions. They are all at the top of the THE list. So, the rankings do reflect quality and provide a benchmark for international comparisons of educational institutions.

This is important and relevant to stakeholders like students, employers, donors, investors and governments.

But is the opposite equally true? If a university or institution is not on the list or near the top, does it follow that it does not offer quality education?

This is tricky. I know of hundreds of small liberal arts colleges in the United States that are not on the THE list but provide excellent education to its students. They do not even aspire to be on the list because they define their role in terms of their mission and purpose. Their students go to them because they believe they are getting value for their money and a unique learning experience that is student-centred.

They are taught by good professors in small classes who are not distracted by research and publication.

Just wanting to be themselves

These institutions don’t want to be Caltech or Harvard. They just want to be themselves, dedicated to providing the best education they can to their students. Neither do their students want to go to Caltech or Harvard because they believe they are getting the best education they want from their colleges.

To these institutions global rankings and the THE metrics and parameters would have little relevance. To them any attempt to get on the THE or QS world ranking list would be a distraction from their mission to provide good education.

Similarly, I know of many Business Schools that do not seek professional accreditation from Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) for their programmes because they believe membership in the professional body will lead to a distortion of their resources to meet benchmarks set by the body.

They think they can better utilise their academic and financial resources to achieve their educational goals if they have a free hand to offer and teach the business programs and courses they want. They believe the measures imposed by AACSB in the name of quality are more a hindrance than help in achieving their educational goals. In their view, AACSB accreditation is not essential to offering a quality business program.

The Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) in India provide additional evidence to the limitations of global rankings of educational institutions. I have visited several of the IITs. They are providing high quality education, especially in science, engineering and technology for a pittance. They are heavily subsidised by the Indian government.

Competition to get in is intense. The graduates are in high demand, both in India and overseas, especially in the United States. Many of them have become prominent entrepreneurs and CEOs of global corporations.

Yet the IITs do not feature prominently in the global rankings of universities. Only two IITs (Mumbai and Roorkee) made it to the top 400 in the THE ranking of 2014. Does India’s poor showing in the world university rankings reflect the quality of education provided by its educational institutions?

Even the India Institutes of Management (IIMs) are not prominent in the rankings. Yet the MBA program offered at IIM Ahmedebad is regarded as one of the best in the world. Similarly for the MBA at IIM Calcutta. There are cases where students have turned down admission to MBA programs in American Ivy schools in favour of IIM Calcutta.

How do we interpret the rankings?

This does raise the question: How do we interpret the university rankings in the THE survey? Here I am not questioning the need to evaluate the performance and quality of universities. Evaluation is necessary, especially in the case of public institutions. The issue is, what do the evaluations and rankings mean? We find universities high in the QS list but low in the THE list.

The point I  am trying to make is that it is important to understand university evaluations and rankings in the proper context. While there are measures of excellence, excellence is still contextual.

What does all this mean for our universities? First, they must not shy away from global evaluations, like the QS and THE surveys. These surveys can be helpful in identifying domains of strength and weaknesses and as global benchmarks.

Second, forget the rankings. The objective should not be how to move up the ranks but how to build good universities and offer high quality programs. Otherwise, rankings can become an obsession and this can lead to distortion of resources and policies. If we go after quality and excellence, ranking will take care of itself in the long run. What is important is to review all our universities and the policies governing them.

We seem to be settling for mediocrity. This must change. The top universities in THE list did not set out to be on the list. They are on the list because they set out to be good instituitions.

We have 20 public universities, 37 private universities and 11 university colleges. Obviously most of them do not have the financial resources or the academic competencies to compete in the QS or THE listings.

This does not mean they should not go after offering quality programs and good teaching. To expect them to meet the evaluation criteria of QS or THE will be a tall order. In this context, it is also necessary to critically assess the criteria employed by the government in issuing licences for private universities.

As for the public universities, a thorough review of their structure, policies, programs and management is urgently required. In the 1960s and 1970s Universiti Malaya was widely recognised not because it was on the QS or THE list but simply because it was a quality institution, with quality faculty and quality students.

Many of the evaluation metrics and parameters presently employed by QS and THE in ranking universities were in place and practised by UM at that time. Gradually we had moved away from quality to mediocrity. The task before us now is to go back to the basics – build and run universities as centres of excellence for imparting and creating knowledge. If we do a good job at this, the global rankings will follow.

This does not mean we do nothing. The authorities can intervene to kick start the process through more funding to our universities and making better policies. Most importantly, we need a complete paradigm shift in the way we run our universities if we are to build institutions that are globally competitive.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 16 October 2014, 8:32 pm and is filed under
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


2015 Budget (2)  – Economic Performance & Prospects

2015 Budget – A Critique (2)

by Economic Observer

17th October 2014

There exists a long held convention for the Annual Budget Speech to serve as a vehicle for reporting to the nation recent economic performance along with a candid account presenting near term prospects.

Sadly the Minister has chosen to ignore tradition.

In a speech of almost 30 pages, hardly a page and a half are devoted to a discussion of recent developments or the prospects for the year ahead. What little is said about recent performance consists of broad generalizations.

Growth merits a few lines; little is said about price developments, private consumption which is a measure of the people’s wellbeing.

Cynically much is made of the performance of the stock market but not a word is said about the growth in private debt or about the leakages that the economy has suffered through massive capital flight.

 The reference to investment trends is based on data relating to approvals rather than actual investments.

The Prime Minister stated: “Total investment reached RM219 billion and more than 437,000 high-paying job opportunities created.”

No details are given. This remarkable statement gives the impression that these were achievements recorded in the past year — the reality is that these numbers are cumulative totals from the year 2009 to the present.

It is most incredible that the Prime Minister has dealt with the issue of prospects for the year ahead in a single sentence: “For 2015, economic growth is expected to remain strong between 5% and 6% while the fiscal deficit is projected to further decline to 3% of GDP.”

No details are provided and neither does he elaborate on other key aspects of how the economy is expected to perform.

For instance, not a word is said about the outlook for inflation, the likely pattern of private investment including the prospects for FDI inflows and how the Ringgit is likely to perform.

There is a need for transparency and a candid presentation.

These stark and glaring omissions provide little confidence that the nation’s economy is being managed competently. It is legitimate to ask: “Has the economy been placed on autopilot?”

The Economic Report, released simultaneously with the delivery of the Budget, in Table 2.5 shows GDP estimates and forecasts for the year ahead.

A close examination of the Table reveals that Private Final Consumption is projected to grow at 5.6 percent in 2015; this rate is the slowest in relation to the growth rate recorded since 2011.

What this implies is that households will feel the impact of the GST and subsidy reductions despite the increased transfers under BR1M other handouts.

The same Table reveals that Private investment will also grow at a slower pace, (10.7%) as against rates of between 12 and 22 percent in recent years.

The slowdown in the rate of growth of private sector activity will be countered partly by stepped up public sector activity.

What these trends indicate is that the private sector as a whole, despite the many incentives provided, is not fully responsive. This in turn appears to be indicative of a loss of confidence in government policies.

The Prime Minister’s assertion that the Malaysian economy is likely to record growth in the order of 5 and 6 percent may be soothing but it is at variance with the forecasts for the Malaysian economy issued by the IMF in its latest edition of the World Economic Outlook.

The IMF expects the Malaysian economy to grow at lower rates of 5.9 percent and 5.2 percent in 2014 and 2015 respectively.

The World Economic Report also touches on the issue of inflation. It projects inflation to be at 2.9 percent in the current year and to record a steep rise to 4.1 percent in 2015. (See Table 2.3 WEO October 2014).

The Prime Minister’s bland statement that the fiscal deficit is projected to decline to 3 percent of GDP in 2015 is less than credible in view of past pronouncements.

These assertions in previous Budget speeches about bringing the deficit under control have proven to be false.

The reality is that deficits reported at the time the Budget is presented are sharply increased via supplementary expenditure bills presented in the early months of the year. Thus, the figure of 3 percent is unlikely to be met.

In this context, the IMF’s WEO notes: “With respect to fiscal policy, although policy space varies across the region and automatic stabilizers should be allowed to operate, fiscal consolidation is desirable across most of Asia and the Pacific. It is a priority where debt levels are relatively higher (Japan) or where there are contingent fiscal liabilities (Malaysia).”

The size of these contingent liabilities remains large but is a closely guarded secret.

These and other off budget borrowings by the public sector have clearly grown.

The self-imposed debt ceiling in all likelihood has been breached.

The Speech is totally silent in this regard.

(to be continued)

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 October 2014, 12:06 pm and is filed under
Budget Debate
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


2015 Budget – Policy Challenges and Rhetoric

2015 Budget – A Critique (1)

by Economic Observer

17th Oct 2014

The Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister in his opening remarks observed that economic planning and policies of a country need to be adjusted according to developments and challenges in the domestic and external environment.

He went on to add that Malaysia is in need of a move to be an economy based on knowledge, high skills, expertise, creativity and innovation.

A laudable statement indeed which will not be disputed or attract criticism. However, this statement is nothing more than a platitude and rhetorical in scope. It is patently clear what the challenges are.

The nation is grappling with the dangers associated with the continued brain drain, and the continued neglect of the education system.

Declining educational standards and failure to take corrective measures are stark and undeniable realities that are taking their toll.

The system churns unemployable graduates lacking skills or knowledge. Our universities, despite the billions spent, are little more than factories churning out graduates lacking skills and knowledge.

Quality has been sacrificed for quantity. The nation lacks the knowledge and skill base and yet little is being done to address these glaring anomalies. This is not the path we need to tread to truly attain developed country status.

The Prime Minister can dream on but the hard reality is that his administration has failed miserably to correct and arrest the decline.

The current budget presented an opportunity to deal with these issues through a bold rethink but sadly the Prime Minister has yet again demonstrated an inability to go beyond mouthing niceties and hopes.

The lack of an ability to translate these niceties into actionable programs is telling and the Prime Minister appears to be living in a make believe world far removed from reality.

His statement that people on the ground, whether in rural and urban areas, may not comprehend or appreciate the relevance of the budget to them is an insulting and patronizing statement.

The people have expectations and an awareness; they expect leadership but it is not forthcoming.

His claim about the steadfastness of the Government in addressing fiscal governance is amazing considering that the debt problem was created by the BN beginning in the late 1990s.

Ever since the onset of the East Asia financial crisis in 1998, the successive BN administrations have not presented a balanced budget.

The policies followed have been reckless. The large public sector fiscal deficits have led to the accumulation of a mountain of public debt.

Public debt has reached unsustainable levels; equally alarming is the fact that private household debt is now in excess of 85 percent of GDP.

These irresponsible fiscal and budgetary policies have contributed to an unwarranted burden on generations to come. These policies have widened income disparities; millions of Malaysians live on the margins of poverty.

These rather bleak circumstances remain unaddressed in the policy package outlined by the Minister which are largely unchanged from earlier budget submissions.

He is less than candid in acknowledging the true state of affairs that exist.

The Prime Mister must deliver change or he will be changed.

(to be continued)

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 October 2014, 10:44 am and is filed under
Budget Debate
,
Education
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Alternative to Sedition Act is in Penal Code

– Adrian Lim

The Malaysian Insider

17 October 2014

I come from a Chinese Christian family. I have been labelled “pendatang” and “Cina Babi” all my life, but the Sedition Act is still irrelevant to me.

Well, many have said that Datuk Ibrahim Ali should be charged with sedition for threatening to burn the Christian Bible. There are also racists and even principals who have labelled the Chinese as “pendatang” or even “Cina Babi”.

Technically, these people have committed an offence under the Sedition Act for “promoting feelings of ill will and hostility between different races” – Section 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act 1948.

Yesterday, Khairy Jamaluddin claimed that the walk against sedition has not made an impact because most Malaysians want safeguards against racially or religiously offensive speech.

Is that so? Do we not have safeguards in place?

In fact, I do not need the Sedition Act to protect me. I do not need the Sedition Act to criminalise people like Abdullah Zaik Abd Rahman, Ridhuan Tee, Zulkifli Nordin or the infamous Ibrahim Ali.

Why? First, it is stupid to try preventing stupid people from saying stupid things.

I believe as a maturing democracy, what we can do to embrace such unintelligent comments, is to simply ignore them. It is akin to wind that carries a rotten smell. It does not hurt to ignore them.

But where do we draw the line?

In cases where threats to burn mosques, churches or temples, Section 295 of the Penal Code is there for you. It is a statutory offence to “destroy or damage places of worship with intent to insult other religion”.

What if someone says something of your religion that hurts your feeling? Well, Section 298 of the Penal Code makes it an offence to intentionally hurt the religion feelings of another.

S298 is similar to the Sedition Act in a sense that it criminalises offensive speech against other religion. The only demarcation being the need to prove the intention under s298, to which the Sedition Act does not require so.

How does the Penal Code deal with speeches that offend one’s religion, resulting in disharmony, disunity, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will? In Ibrahim’s case where he threatened to burn the Christian Bible, he would have fallen under S298A of the Penal Code.

Nowadays, anything and everything on the royalty is an offence. One cannot speak or criticise constructively, because it has seditious tendencies.

There was a brief Twitter sensation with the hashtag #SultanBukanTuhan a while ago. People were being questioned and charged for comments made against the royalty.

Those comments, in my opinion, were uncalled for and ridiculous, but then again, stupid and unintelligent comments are all over the Net, most of the time with anonymous Facebook or Twitter accounts. So the question – is it a crime to be stupid?

Freedom of expression? I would say it is pertinent, but such freedom is not an absolute freedom. So a line has to be drawn. Now where is the line?

Section 121 of the Penal Code protects the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Sultans and di-Pertua Negeri.

It is an offence to “hurt, cause the death, imprison or restrain” the rulers. It is vital to note here, that this section protects the physical security of the rulers. That’s the demarcation.

So how do we deal with people who incite racial disunity that causes physical hurt to another? For example, if a racist incites a repetition of May 13, or a call to bathe a knife with a certain race’s blood?

Section 504 and Section 505 would be the answer. It is an offence to “insult with an intention to provoke a breach of peace” (Section 504) and also a crime to “make statements that incites public mischief” (Section 505).

These are some basic examples and there are plenty more in the Penal Code to safeguard racially or religiously offensive speech.

All in all, the distinction between these provisions illustrated above and the Sedition Act is the presence of an intention. The intention to cause physical hurt, death, public unrest and so on.

The problem with the Sedition Act is the disregard for such intentions. The presence of a seditious remark is all that is needed. This includes, someone hacking your Facebook or Twitter account by saying something “seditious”. See the dangers now? – October 17, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 October 2014, 11:36 am and is filed under
Law & Order
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Cabinet must take collective Ministerial stand to endorse or dissociate from Nancy Shukri’s parliamentary answer that Ibrahim Ali is not prosecuted for his threat to burn Malay-language Bible as he was defending sanctity of Islam and protected by Article 11(4) of the Constitution

The Cabinet at its meeting today must take collective Ministerial stand to endorse or  dissociate from the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Nancy Shukri’s parliamentary answer to the Penang Chief Minister and Bagan Member of Parliament Lim Guan Eng that Perkasa President, Datuk Ibrahim Ali is not prosecuted for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible  as Ibrahim was defending the sanctity of Islam and his action was protected by Article 11(4) of the Malaysian Constitution.

Borneo Post
, in a report yesterday headlined
 “Nancy says she does not support Ibrahim Ali or his religious views”
, quoted Nancy as making the following statement through her political secretary Kamaluddin Effendie:

“Neither the police nor AG (Attorney-General) can give any reply in Parliament. I, as the de-facto Law Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, had to do it on their behalf. Whatever were the findings of the police or the decision of the AG, I read it out in Parliament because they could not do it there.

“It must be made known that it was the AG’s decision not to charge Dato Ibrahim under the Sedition Act, and the decision was made based on the police investigation.

“As a minister or one of the leaders of the nation, I have to support the rule of the law, but it does not mean I agree with Dato Ibrahim’s extreme views.”

Nancy has a very mixed-up notion of the “the rule of law”.

Be that as it may, there  are several questions and issues which must be resolved at the Cabinet meeting today.

Firstly, is it the police stand that Ibrahim should not be prosecuted for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible as Ibrahim was defending the sanctity of Islam and his action was protected by Article 11(4) of the Malaysian Constitution? Is this the recommendation of the police in their investigation papers submitted to the AG’s Chambers? Or did the police made no recommendations  whatsoever in their investigation papers?

Secondly, is the stand of the Attorney-General’s Chambers not to prosecute Ibrahim Ali the same as the recommendation of the police, or did the AG’s Chambers arrived at this stand without any recommendation by the police?

Thirdly, is this stand of the AG Chambers fully endorsed by the Attorney-General, Tan Sri Gani Patail?

Fourthly, are  the Prime Minister and Cabinet collectively endorsing or repudiating the stand taken by the Attorney-General’s Chambers that Ibrahim Ali should not be prosecuted for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible on the ground that Ibrahim was defending the sanctity of Islam and his action was protected by Article 11(4) of the Malaysian Constitution?

Although Article 145(3) of the Malaysian Constitution vests in the Attorney-General the sole discretionary power “to institute, continue or discontinue any proceedings for any offence”, the AG’s prosecution decisions are actions of the Executive and not of the Judiciary, which means the Prime Minister  and the Cabinet must assume full collective responsibility for the AG’s decisions and actions and cannot disclaim responsibility in any manner.

If the Attorney-General had flouted or deviated from the policy direction of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, as for instance taking the country in the direction of being the world’s worst democracy instead of the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s pledge of being the world’s best democracy,  the Prime Minister and Cabinet should either acquiesce or repudiate and dissociate themselves from the Attorney-General’s decision and actions.

If the former, i.e. the Prime Minister and Cabinet collectively endorsing the Attorney-General’s decisions and actions, then Ministers who do not agree that Ibrahim Ali should not be prosecuted for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible because he was defending the sanctity of Islam and is protected by Article 11(4) of the Constitution has only one honourable way out – to resign from Najib’s Cabinet.

What is in store in today’s Cabinet meeting?

Will it endorse or repudiate the Attorney-General’s decision not to prosecute Ibrahim Ali?

If the former, how many Ministers will resign in protest on a matter of principle as it is a  major and even fundamental violation of Najib’s pledge to lead a moderate nation based on the wasatiyyah principles of justice, balance and excellence and not to compromise or  give in to extremism and intolerance of any form?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 October 2014, 9:49 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Law & Order
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia 19 years behind South Korea, complacency, graft among culprits

by Lee Shi-Ian

The Malaysian Insider

17 October 2014

Malaysia are 19 years behind South Korea in terms of productivity, the Malaysian International Chamber of Commerce and Industry said today, naming graft, leakages, complacency and archaic labour laws as road blocks.

Its executive director Stewart Forbes said Malaysia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per worker productivity last year was equivalent to South Korea’s – but in 1995.

“Malaysia’s historic productivity growth was unimpressive although at one time, Malaysia, South Korea and Taiwan all started out on the same level playing field.

“Putrajaya is always quick to point out that Malaysia is better than Thailand or Vietnam or Indonesia. But why is Malaysia choosing the worst to make comparisons?

“Putrajaya ought to be comparing Malaysia to Taiwan, Singapore or South Korea. They should set the bar higher when making comparisons,” Forbes said.

He was speaking at a discussion “Budget 2015: Balancing Growth, Fiscal Sustainability and Rising Cost of Living”, organised by the Asian Strategy & Leadership Institute (Asli) in Kuala Lumpur today.

“Complacency is never far away and comparing yourself to the worst countries instead of to the best will only make people rest on their laurels instead of striving for more.”

Moderator Tan Sri Dr Ramon V. Navaratnam agreed with Forbes, saying Malaysians had lost the fire which helped the country reach its current level since independence.

Ramon, the Centre for Public Policy Studies chairman, said a lack of meritocracy had played a role in Malaysians losing the edge in terms of productivity.

“Companies which hire foreign workers have claimed that Malaysians are too demanding, including wanting weekends off and higher pay,” Ramon said.

Forbes warned against creating a dependence on the 1Malaysia People’s Aid (BR1M) handouts, saying it would undermine capacity building.

“Putrajaya must take steps to ensure that BR1M does not become something which is expected rather than an assistance,” Forbes said.

“While the handouts for the lower income groups will help, the introduction of GST next year and subsidy rollbacks will increase cost of living.”

Forbes praised Putrajaya over Budget 2015, noting that the government would earn more revenue from the Goods and Services Tax, continued investment and trade.

However, he also noted that Putrajaya would earn less revenue through direct taxation due to decreases in the individual and corporate tax rates.

“Putrajaya will also be spending a fair amount of money in giving out BR1M handouts,” he said, adding continued leakages would also cost the government money.

“Malaysia loses at least RM1.5 to RM2 billion due to smuggling activities including contraband alcohol, cigarettes and fuel,” he said, adding this did not include corruption and wastage.

Forbes also noted that the Budget 2015 expenditure was still focused on operational rather than development, and said corruption and productivity issues had yet to be addressed.

“Putrajaya also needs to focus on amending labour laws in Malaysia as they are quite archaic and hark back to post-independence days.

“A balance needs to be struck in Malaysia’s labour laws to bring it in line with the 21st century. Changes need to be made to bring it up to date,” he said. – October 17, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 October 2014, 9:00 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Economics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Terrorising the Christian minority

Boo Su-Lyn

Malay Mail Online

OCTOBER 17, 2014

OCTOBER 17 ― De facto law minister Nancy Shukri sparked an outrage when she said that Datuk Ibrahim Ali was not prosecuted over his threat to burn Christian bibles because the authorities had concluded that the Perkasa president was merely defending Islam.

According to her, the Attorney-General’s Chambers had decided that Ibrahim’s alleged call for Muslims to torch Malay-language bibles containing the word “Allah” was in line with Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution that prohibits the proselytisation of other faiths to Muslims.

Malaysian law does not address hate crimes per se; Ibrahim was investigated under Section 298 of the Penal Code that outlaws wounding the religious feelings of another.

News portal Free Malaysia Today quotes Ibrahim as saying at a press conference on January 19, 2013: “Muslims must unite to protect their religion. They must seize those Bibles, including the Malay editions, which contained the term Allah and other Arabic religious terms, and burn them.”

The Malay right-wing group chief was purportedly responding to a claim that Christian bibles were being distributed to students, including Malays, at a secondary school in Penang.

The government’s explanation that Ibrahim was merely trying to protect the sanctity of Islam gives the false impression that Islam is under attack in the country, and hence, it is fine to do whatever it takes ― even burning the holy books of a minority religious group ― to defend it.

Muslims make up 61 per cent of the Malaysian population. Christians are a mere 9 per cent.

Ibrahim’s alleged call to burn bibles is an attack against a religious minority that is arguably tantamount to a hate crime.

The government seems to forget that Christians are a minority that make up less than one in 10 of Malaysians. Instead, Putrajaya acts as if Muslims are the minority.

It is irresponsible and utterly disingenuous of the government and Barisan Nasional (BN) to envelop the Malay-Muslim majority in paranoia, making them feel as if they are constantly under siege from minority groups like the Christians or the Chinese.

Already, Christians have lost a major court battle for the right to refer to God with the Arabic word “Allah” in their internal newspaper. A Christian Sarawakian has yet to get back her personal CDs containing the word “Allah” that were confiscated by the government.

It is not the Muslims who should feel that they’re under threat; it is the Christians. They live in fear that the government can confiscate their holy books or publications at any time. Worse, the government now appears to give tacit approval to Muslim individuals too to seize and burn Christian holy scriptures.

It’s hypocritical of the government and BN, who claim to uphold Bumiputera rights, to allow these things to happen when it is the Bumiputera Christians who use the word “Allah.”

Malay-Muslims comprise the majority of Malaysians. They enjoy affirmative action policies. The ruling party is a Malay party. The top government leaders are Malay-Muslims. Every time someone “insults” Islam, whatever that means, they’re hauled up by the authorities. In the Orang Asli villages, the Muslims allegedly receive more amenities and government aid than the Christians.

There is nothing for Malay-Muslims to be afraid of. They are the ones in power. They are not the oppressed.

Ibrahim’s alleged call to burn bibles is similar to an American pastor’s plan to burn the Quran in the Christian-majority country back in 2010.

They are both attacks against minority groups that are already suffering discrimination.

It is the government’s responsibility to protect minorities, not the majority. In a democracy, the majority does not need protection.

Looking at the way things are going now, it’s perfectly possible to start a witch-hunt against the Christian minority without fear of state sanction.

That is the real message behind the decision not to prosecute Ibrahim Ali.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 October 2014, 11:22 am and is filed under
Islam
,
Law & Order
,
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The regression of our society

 – Joshua Wu

The Malaysian Insider

17 October 2014

I refer to the video on YouTube on the attack on Gerakan Hapus Akta Hasutan’s (GHAH) Penang coordinator Ong Jing Cheng as well as a few others during their peaceful gathering at Speaker’s Square in Penang.

“Unacceptable, abhorrent, repulsive, barbaric, uncivilized, undemocratic, illegal, insolent, untenable, quixotic, unscrupulous, boorish, cockamamie, craven, dastardly, egregious, odious, and asinine” were some of the words that flashed through my mind as I watched the seven minutes and thirty seconds video.

Aren’t the troublemakers worried about the civil and criminal repercussions of their actions?

The few that instantly came to mind were: psychic assault, battery/physical assault, and the use of criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation (s.352 of the Penal Code).

The Coalition of Penang Islamic NGOs even had the gall to say that they were merely asserting their freedom of speech! It seems as though as our society is regressing instead of progressing!

Under what sick and twisted logic does the freedom of expression allow you to physically and verbally abuse another person? Just as you have the right to speak responsibly, the other person does too!

The group blamed the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) state government for promoting freedom of expression by opening up a Speaker’s Square.

The coalition’s general secretary was quoted as saying, “The move by the state government to allow a Speaker’s Square and to allow freedom of speech is causing havoc, fights and all sorts of incidents.”

As we should know, the freedom of expression is enshrined in Article 10 of our Federal Constitution, and is subjected to the laws of our land on defamation, criminal intimidation, assult, insult, etc.

Therefore, the Penang government’s act of opening a Speaker’s Square for people to speak their mind is in line with Article 10 and is a good step in enhancing democracy in our nation.

Ahmad Yakuub’s statement that “every Sunday, from 6pm to 7pm, we (the public) are free to say what we want at the Speaker’s Square, it does not matter whether it is to instigate people” is nothing short of misleading.

The Penang government does not have the right to allow a person to speak freely and shield them from criminal prosecution. Hence, those who misuse the freedom at the Speaker’s Square to defame or instigate others will face the full brunt of the law.

The use of the Speakers’ Square is subject to the following:

1. All speakers are prohibited from using loudspeakers, megaphone and any other public address system.

2. Anyone who uses the Square to make speeches does so at his or her own risk.

3. The state government and the municipal council will not be responsible for any prosecution or legal action by the Police or civil proceedings

Condition 1 was clearly violated as someone from the pro-Sedition Act camp used a megaphone to drown out GHAH’s Penang coordinator Ong Jing Cheng.

Condition 3 clearly substantiates my point that one is still responsible for what he/she says at the Speaker’s Square.

The Speaker’s Square is but a mere platform for a person to air his/her views, and for people to have debates and discussions. Speaking there DOES NOT confer an immunity upon the speaker

This is unlike the legal immunity of parliamentary privilege in which our elected representatives are granted protection against civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made (subject to the rule of unparliamentary language) in the course of their legislative duties.

Such a right is necessary to ensure that even the most controversial issues get debated in Parliament.

At the time of writing, no action has been taken against the perpetrators. The police has to be swift in castigating the individuals behind the vile act, regardless of whether a police report is/was made or not.

The A-G should also expeditiously prosecute those involved and make it a lesson to everyone that such behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerated!

If the IGP or the A-G can’t do their job properly, it’s high time we replace them with competent individuals. Day after day it seems like our country is heading towards lawlessness!

Besides the initiation of criminal proceedings, Ong Jing Cheng and the British couple can and should sue the scallywags under the law of tort for the assault and battery they underwent. – October 17, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 October 2014, 4:29 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Human Rights
,
Law & Order
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


1Malaysia does not need Tongkat Ali or Viagra

M. Kulasegaran

Malaysiakini

18th Oct 2014

At the 60th MCA annual general assembly held last December, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak said MCA has the numbers and potential to champion the Chinese community, but lacks the spirit to succeed.

 “We need political Viagra. Our spirit on the ground is weak,” Najib told the assembly. His comments  made MCA the butt of joke, especially in the social media.

It is therefore most ironic that yesterday, Gerakan president Mah Siew Keong said the 1Malaysia campaign, which appears to have run out of steam since the last general election, needed a lift similar to the aphrodisiac root Tongkat Ali, so that the campaign could be “long lasting”.

MCA leaders were laughed at for not being brave enough to rebut the prime minister for his insulting analogy.

Will Najib tell Mah off for making him the new butt of joke?

Najib has talked much about the 1Malaysia concept but there is no doubt that it is merely a political slogan that rings hollow.

An example is the discrepancy in funds allocated to national and vernacular schools.

If the prime minister is committed to his 1Malaysia concept, which must mean fairness for all, he must be prepared to walk the talk and accord fair treatment to all schools.

If he is serious about his 1Malaysia concept, he will not allow racial slurs against the non-Malay communities by extremists to go unpunished.

Neither should he have remained silent till today, after Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin announced that he is Malay first and Malaysian second.

If Najib is committed to his 1Malaysia concept, he must be bold to implement colour-blind polices that will ensure an equal place for all Malaysians under the Malaysian sun.

However, after decades of BN rule, the government is still not able to do this. Despite having helmed the nation’s for the last six years, Najib has failed to be the prime minister for all Malaysians.

His slogan, “I am prime minister for all” is just as hollow as his “1Malaysia” slogan.

Let me tell Prime Minister Najib and his Minister Mah Siew Keong that what the 1Malaysia concept needs in order to last long is not Tongkat Ali or Viagra, but sincere commitment from the entire cabinet.

M KULASEGARAN is the MP for Ipoh Barat and DAP vice-chairperson.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 18 October 2014, 4:53 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


2015 Budget (3) – Implementing GST

2015 Budget (3)  – A Critique

by Economic Observer

18th October 2014

The Prime Minister has attempted to offer soothing statements concerning the scope and coverage of the GST.

He has listed a whole list of items that will be exempted. While the list may be impressive, the value of the items that will be exempted remains shrouded.

Such claims as “ Of the 944 goods and services in the basket of goods of the CPI, the prices of 532 items or 56% are expected to reduce up to 4.1%.” or “Meanwhile, about 354 goods and services may experience some price increase but less than 5.8%” offer little clarity. No indication is given about the burden to be borne by an average household or the percentage by which the CPI will rise.

The Prime Minister indicated that the GST will yield RM 23.2 billion in gross revenue. However, with the implementation of GST, the Sales and Services Tax (SST), will be abolished resulting in revenue foregone of RM13.8 billion.

He went on to state: “This means that after deducting RM13.8 billion and RM3.8 billion from a revenue of RM23.2 billion, the Government will have a balance of RM5.6 billion.”

He went on to claim that of the total, RM4.9 billion was being channeled back to the rakyat through assistance programs such as the increase in BR1M.

“Finally, net revenue collection from GST will only amount to RM690 million.” This latter statement is remarkable indeed and is designed to minimize the collection from this new tax.

The Minister has side-stepped pertinent questions concerning the impact of the GST on middle and low income households by referring to the tax reductions.

The beneficiaries of the reduction in personal and corporate income taxes will be the upper income groups and crony corporations.

The stark reality is that those in middle and low income earnings groups will be dealt a severe double blow by way of the impending reduction in subsidies on fuels on the one hand and by the GST imposition.

The increase in BR1M and other handouts offers partial relief to the poor and needy but is insufficient to mitigate the adverse outcomes associated with the GST and so-called subsidy rationalization.

On the other hand, the tax reliefs and other giveaways are directed at the rich and well off members of society and constituencies that offer support to the BN.

What emerges from this tinkering with the tax structure is a monumental shift in tax policies.

These changes taken as a whole point to an anti-poor tilt while favoring the well-off segments of society. The wide income disparities that exist will be further widened.

These steps run counter to the notion of an egalitarian society in which all citizens enjoy the fruits of development.

The Prime Minister has attempted to make a case for subsidy rationalization.

While there is indeed a case for rationalization, questions arise as to which subsidies ought to be targeted and the pace at which they should be reduced or eliminated.

The Prime Minister seems obsessed by the need to reduce the subsidy on petroleum and fuels without taking account of the impact on the working poor dependent on private transportation.

He has not addressed the question of generous subsidies and concessions granted to toll road operators, independent power producers and tax rebates to industries.

The time has come for an overall Public Expenditure Review. Such a review is long overdue and should be carried out immediately to remove distortions that have accumulated over the years.

There is considerable room for mounting a reform agenda.

(to be continued)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 18 October 2014, 7:15 am and is filed under
Budget Debate
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


2015 Budget (4) – The National Agenda: Increasing equity ownership of Bumiputeras

2015 Budget (4) – A Critique

by Economic Adviser

18th October 2014

In indicating a further RM 600 million to EKUINAS to enable it to increase Bumiputera corporate equity the Prime Minister observed that the Bumiputera have yet to achieve the 30% target.

He further noted their effective control over corporations is currently only around 10%.

The Prime Minister appears to be playing to the right-wing gallery in his party by making these assertions which are unsubstantiated.

No details have been provided or reference made to any rigorous study.

Even a cursory review shows that GLCs are almost entirely Bumiputera controlled. The GLCs listed on the stock exchange account for almost 30 percent of paid up capital.

Earlier estimates in the government’s own Five Year Malaysia Plans show that even using the disputed par value approach, Bumiputera ownership of shares in limited companies increased from 19 percent to 22 percent in 2008, while the non-Bumiputera share declined from 41 percent to 36.7 percent during the same period.

The Prime Minister needs to provide specifics. There is an urgent need to lift the veil of secrecy and to let daylight in to settle the issue of how these calculations of equity ownership are done.

Off the cuff references to these sensitive and divisive statistics do not serve the national interest and contribute to the creation of unnecessary tensions.

It is imperative that in calculating the respective ethnic shares of corporate equity, that the apportionment factor in the share of GLCs as well as nominee companies be according to the ethnic composition of the country.

The Prime Minister needs to be reminded that the restructuring of society had two prongs.

Beyond the issue of ownership of equity, there was a parallel call for eradication of poverty irrespective of race.

The Speech makes no reference to this issue even as poverty exists among many segments of the population and in regions of the country.

No targeted allocations are made in the Budget to address poverty incidence among minority groups such as Indians and Orang Asli.

(to be continued)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 18 October 2014, 2:33 pm and is filed under
Budget Debate
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


How a tiny fishing village became the gadget factory of the world, and why that’s just the beginning of its ambitions

By Steve Ranger

TechRepublic

It’s a hot summer evening in Shenzhen, but it’s still cool inside the Apple store. The young shoppers are checking out the phones and nodding along to the music by a British indie band of the early nineties. The music they’re listening to is not only older than they are, it’s also older than most of the mega-city of 12 million people, too.

A mere 35 years ago, Shenzhen was little more than a fishing village clinging to the coast, peering enviously at wealthy Hong Kong across the water. But then it was chosen to become the first of China’s special economic zones under Deng Xiaoping — an area where foreign investment and entrepreneurialism was encouraged.

Since then it has rapidly grown into a massive metropolis — one of the largest cities on the planet — and along the way it has also become the manufacturing heart of the global tech industry. If Silicon Valley is the world’s software epicentre, then Shenzhen is home of hardware.

Today, the city’s seafront skyline sprawls along Shenzhen Bay, almost as impressive as Hong Kong. The downtown mega-mall where the Apple store is situated is stuffed with the highest of high-end western brands alongside an indoor ice-rink. I browsed very carefully in a shop where particularly garish shirts retail for several thousand dollars. In the workday rush hour outside, expensive sports cars and imported 4x4s vie for space with buses on the city’s roads, another sign of the affluence that manufacturing technology has brought to the town.

Despite the walkways draped with foliage and the trees that line its main roads and the vast, grand public buildings, it’s not the sort of town you might casually fall in love with. It has been built so fast it’s hard to find its beating heart. But there’s little doubt of its furious ambition. The pricey mall also features an exhibition of a new flats already being built in the hills on the edge of the city.

Shenzhen is best-known for being home to giant manufacturers like Foxconn, but it also houses hundreds of smaller factories that create everything from individual gadget components to finished devices. While the city has been anonymously churning out electronics for decades, now it’s changing again, becoming notable as both a hub for hardware startups and some of the largest Chinese tech companies that yearn to be bigger players on the world stage.

As such, more than any other Chinese city, it embodies many of the issues that surface when discussing the country’s increasing role in the technology industry, both as a gigantic market viewed hungrily by western tech companies, but also as an increasingly confident creator of its own hardware and software.

***

The Huaqiangbei shopping district is a kilometre of technology stores — every hot Chinese and western consumer tech brand is plastered across dozens of small outlets. It’s become a standard stopping off point of in Shenzhen for those trying to understand the complicated ecosystem of tech businesses large and small that keeps the city producing millions of devices each year.

Chinese pop songs blare out of speakers and salespeople wave and shout — and occasionally sing — into microphones as they try to attract the attention of shoppers passing by, umbrellas held high to ward off the afternoon sun. Most shops seem to be doing good business as the workers of Shenzhen — also now one of China’s most affluent cities — check out the latest devices.

But there’s more to Huaqiangbei than this. To step off the bright street through one of the dark doorways into one of the many markets along the road is to step into a vaulted cathedral of components.

These markets can be four or five stories high, with floor after floor of every electronics component imaginable. Smartphone screens, chips, memory, batteries and hard drives for sale individually or by the thousand from factories around the city. The further up the building you go, the more sophisticated the products — basic components on the ground floor to drones and smartphones at the top.

Some of the malls are bright and fresh, some are scruffy and musty. Many of the components are new, others recycled from old equipment. Among the jumble of gadgets there are copies, refurbished devices, and locally-built hardware that will never make it to western markets.

It’s a surprising homely scene, the future in a domestic setting. Bored men sitting at their stalls glance up briefly as I pass, then go back to counting memory cards. School kids struggle on with their homework surrounded piles of processors more powerful than all the computers that existed on the planet just a few years ago and babies snooze oblivious to the jumble of techno-wealth that surrounds them.

Shenzhen doesn’t just make components. Thanks to the so-called “Shanzai” open design culture, there are now also plenty of locally-designed and built devices too. Apple’s “Designed in California” is being replaced by designed in Shenzhen. A number of western accelerators are now tapping into that expertise to both get hardware built fast and cheap.

One of the leading examples of this is the accelerator programme HAXLR8R, which has used the manufacturing ecosystem in Shenzhen to make it possible for entrepreneurs to prototype and manufacture devices for a fraction of the cost – and speed – it would take elsewhere.

The programme sends entrepreneurs to live and work on projects in Shenzhen for three months. While it can cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to build a product in the US, companies on the programme aim to go from initial idea to final product for $20,000, including airfare and living costs. Once they’ve got a product, the companies then turn to crowdfunding campaigns to sell it.

Cyril Ebersweiler, the founder of HAXLR8R, explained why Shenzhen is so important to the programme: “By being here and able to prototype fast, cheap and efficiently and being able to build at the same time as you prototype, you will get to market faster,” he said. “Prototyping is faster because you can get anything in 12 to 24 hours here.”

Being in Shenzhen means that the startups will be working with the same components that they will end up using in the finished devices (thus reducing the number of potential surprises in the manufacturing process), and the depth of the supply chain means it is possible to find extremely specialised suppliers. “You can find factories that are specialised in bicycle handlebars. Not bicycles, only the handlebars,” he said.

And that also means working much more closely with the manufacturers. Manufacturing is not an afterthought when it comes to brand new products, Ebersweiler says. Instead the manufacturer is a startup’s most important partner. “They are going to produce your product; it’s as much their startup as it is yours at this stage, so ‘parachute’ manufacturing doesn’t work,” he argues.

While Shenzhen had in the past a reputation for copycatting and poor quality manufacturing, Ebersweiler said it has improved greatly in recent years. Some of this is down to the influence of Apple, one of the many companies to have used manufacturers in the area. “The expectations of customers went through the roof,” he said. And as a result, factories could no longer get away with providing poor quality components.

Zach Supalla, founder of Spark, which makes a tiny Wi-Fi development kit that developers can use to build connected products quickly, is one of the entrepreneurs to go through the HAXLR8R programme.

He had previously tried launching a consumer product on Kickstarter with little success, then spent January to May last year in Shenzhen reworking the business and relaunched with the new product on Kickstarter when he returned. “We were asking for $10,000 and we raised almost $600,000,” he said.

“China was such an incredible place to be to develop a product and to learn how to create hardware. We learned a lot about how to move quickly and to develop hardware at a pace that looks a lot like software,” he said.

For example: to get a factory to build a circuit board in three days in the US could cost $1,000; in China, that’s $30. “It let us move a lot more quickly being there and being down the street from the guys who were actually making the [boards],” he said. In China, it’s easier to deal in low volumes which makes it easier to change designs quickly, he added.

“We’ve learned ways to source components that comes from really understanding China. There can often be a negative connotation of working in China and that comes from the experience that people have when they don’t interact directly, they interact at arms-length,” Supalla said.

Still, not everything is easier in Shenzhen. For example, Supalla found it hard to get anyone to make things out of wood. “If you are doing electronics, great, that path is there and there are thousands of people who will help you with that. But, if what you are doing is a little bit off the beaten path, then the processes aren’t there.”

While the hardware hackers are only a small element of the Shenzhen ecosystem, they are a growing component and one that the city seems to be encouraging. It already has a nascent hipster neighbourhood in the form of OCT-LOFT with its funky boutique and inevitable Starbucks.

***

Shenzhen is about more than tiny factories. It’s also home to a number of the biggest Chinese tech companies including ZTE, Coolpad, and Tencent, which are all based in the city.

The company out of Shenzhen that has so far achieved the most international attention is Huawei, whose headquarters are not far down the highway from Foxconn’s huge site.

“We learned a lot about how to move quickly and to develop hardware at a pace that looks a lot like software.”

Zach Supalla, founder of Spark

The history of Huawei and Shenzhen are intertwined. The company was set up by a former military officer back in the eighties and it started out by reselling telephone switches into China.

Since then it has swelled to become the second largest telecom equipment company and the third largest smartphone maker in the world, a $39 billion corporate giant that has designs on becoming a major supplier of technology to business, too.

The company’s grand two-kilometre-square chrome and glass campus is a world away from the cramped booths of Huaqiangbei. One the buildings that houses its not-to-be-photographed testing labs is even dubbed the “White House.”

But, in many ways, it’s much the same as any other big tech company campus, although few have the same sub-tropical weather, setting, or low cost on-site housing where staff can live for the first two years of their employment. The best rooms with food cost around £30 a night, with a basic room to be had for more like £12. The need for accommodation is a reflection of the soaring costs of living accommodations in booming Shenzhen. Some Silicon Valley employers may wish to take note.

It’s lunchtime when I arrive on the Huawei campus, which means the canteens are full. Around 40,000 people work on the campus every day. Employees start work at 8:30am and usually clock off at 5:30pm. At lunchtime some snooze on the bedrolls they store under their desks or join in with the communal exercise programme.

The founder of the company very rarely gives interviews, and Huawei has an unusual rotating CEO structure where a number of execs share that job in six month shifts. In a tech world where companies are often helmed by rock star CEOs to create identity and glamour for otherwise dull companies, Huawei’s more collective leadership perhaps makes it harder for Westerners to come to grips with the organisation.

While it’s the second largest networking equipment company in the world, there’s one set of telecoms that you won’t find buying Huawei equipment: the providers in the US.

That’s because in 2012 the US House of Representatives intelligence committee published a fiercely critical report warning that the use of Huawei networking equipment could “undermine core US national-security interests.” Much of the concern revolved around the relationship between the company and the Chinese government.

Huawei has consistently denied these and other claims, insisting that is a private, employee-owned company. But the issue has refused to go away, and as a result the US remains a very tough market for the company, even though it has had significant success elsewhere.

It’s one example of a bigger, broader issue for Chinese tech companies. The Chinese state is regularly accused of carrying out large scale internet espionage campaigns and has been criticised for implementing its “Great Firewall of China” to restrict access to Twitter, Facebook and other news and social sites. These decisions by the state have had a knock-on effect on to make it harder for Chinese tech companies to compete in certain countries and industries.

Other countries however have taken a more nuanced approach when it comes to Huawei. In the UK, for example, Huawei has been a major supplier to BT’s critical national telecom network for the last decade, although BT was required to set up a government-monitored unit which inspects Huawei’s equipment for any potential security flaws.

A report published by the UK government last year said the only weaknesses discovered to that point could be attributed to “genuine design weaknesses or errors in coding practice.”

And of course, in couple of years since the House of Representatives report, NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the massive internet surveillance projects being run by US intelligence agencies (in a shop in Shanghai I saw a paper cut of Snowden on display with Chairman Mao and Che Guevara, perhaps offering a different perspective on his actions to what the NSA might have).

Still, Huawei execs are well used to answering questions about the US market: ” You pay more attention to the US market than we do,” joked William Xu, executive director and head of strategy at Huawei, when asked about it. And when asked if he thought it was ironic that, considering the criticism of Huawei, it was the US that had been caught spying, Xu did not give a direct response but laughed and responded through his translator: “I think you get the answer.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the company would rather talk about its R&D than the accusations. The company has 150,000 staff and claims that 70,000 of them work in research and development. It says it spent $5 billion on R&D last year and now has almost 40,000 patents.

Huawei is betting big on a massive increase in data traffic on the world’s networks, thanks to the internet of things. The company predicts there will be 100 billion networked devices by 2020. That could put Huawei in the right place at the right time by increasing the demand for network equipment to handle of that traffic. The company even has a research lab called 2012 after the cheesy disaster movie of the same name, which is looking into the consequences of this flood of traffic, and another called Noah’s Ark, which focuses on big data.

It also wants to boost its enterprise business, as it believes the enterprise market holds much greater potential for growth than the rather staid telecom networking world. It argues that the skills it has built on the telecoms side can help as enterprises have to deal with big data. The enterprise business only accounts for seven percent of the company’s revenue — compared to 70 percent for the network business and 23 percent for mobile.

“We have more experience with scaling up large installations because of our telecoms background and more experience with the kind of reliability that people will need,” said Ron Raffensperger, CTO of the Huawei’s IT business.

And as the exhibition centre housed at its Shenzhen headquarters shows, the company is also moving rapidly beyond the dowdy world of telecoms equipment into smartphones. It is now the third largest smartphone maker in global sales behind Apple and Samsung.

While it might have some difficulty in getting western consumers to say Huawei correctly (it’s pronounced wah-way; it even considered developing a new brand to counter the problem), in the consumer market it doesn’t face the same suspicion that it does in US carrier market. Indeed a visit to the company’s flagship store in Huaqiangbei is a distinctly standing room only affair — although red-hot Xiaomi is now the largest smartphone brand in China.

The company only started selling smartphones in 2010, managing to sell a mere three million devices that year, which rapidly rose to 20 million smartphones in 2011, then 32 million in 2012, and in 2013 it hit 52 million.

This year shipments are likely to reach 90 million and the company has aspirations to be bigger. “We believe we can be a challenger for the tier one, for Apple and Samsung,” said Shao Yang, Huawei’s consumer business group marketing director, in a meeting at the company’s headquarters.

It’s a relatively unlikely goal, at least in the short term, as Huawei remains a distant third at the moment.

IDC analyst Francisco Jeronimo said over the last two years Huawei has done a good job of improving the quality of the handsets in its portfolio, and has benefitted as other phone manufacturers like Nokia and HTC have declined. And the company’s heritage as a provider of mobile network infrastructure has helped it build better relationships with operators too. Still, Jeronimo said for all of this Huawei is also likely to face a new challenge from China, too, in the shape of smaller, faster moving rivals: “The problem is they will face stronger competition in the next few years from their homeland,” he said.

But all of this shows how fast moving the smartphone market is. While western markets may be reaching saturation point, there’s still plenty to play for in emerging markets.

And it’s not just in the mobile space that attention is shifting to emerging markets. The growth of companies like Huawei reflects how international the tech world is becoming. Since the inception of the tech industry, the West — and particularly the West Coast of the US — was both the engine of tech innovation and also its most important market. Neither of those assumptions are likely to remain true over the next 50 years.

So whether it’s the companies out of Shenzhen or the server makers of out Taiwan or any of the thousands of tech companies coming out of emerging economies, dealing with this new wave of competition may be one of the biggest challenges for the tech industry over the next couple of decades.

And of course, it’s not just Chinese companies that are looking to international markets, but also US companies keen to get a foothold in China. China is a source of competitors, but it’s also the biggest consumer electronics market in the world, and tech companies eagerly want access to all of those potential customers.

Intel, for example, revealed in September it spent $1.5 billion on a stake in a Chinese chipmaker to get hold of technology but also to get a better position in that increasingly important market. Lenovo, another Chinese giant, has acquired two chunks of IBM to further its international ambitions and has become a major employer in the US in the process. Soon it will be increasingly hard to point to the geographical home of some of these firms.

Not far from its grand shopping mall, Shenzhen has a tourist attraction called Window of the World. Like the ones in many other Chinese cities it’s a theme park grand tour of the world’s greatest hits — Pyramids, Arc de Triomphe, and Eiffel Tower, the sort of thing that is a big hit with families on those subtropical humid nights.

As I stroll past it I ponder the contrast between these sights and their famous cities, and the anonymity of Shenzhen, a city that, through the gadgets it creates, has such a big impact on the wider world, and yet remains relatively unknown.

Still, if the march of Shenzhen’s tech companies — both large and small — continues, it may not be that way for very much longer.

Steve Ranger travelled to Shenzhen as a guest of Huawei

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 18 October 2014, 2:00 pm and is filed under
IT
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Religious, ethnic hatred top global threat for Malaysians, poll finds

by Boo Su-Lyn

Malay Mail Online

October 17, 2014

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 17 ― Nearly one-third of Malaysians see religious and ethnic hatred as posing the greatest danger to the world, according to the latest survey finding by Pew Research Center, a concern shared by Indonesia amid simmering religious tensions in both countries and the rise of violent militant Islamist groups.

The Washington-based research group’s Greatest Dangers in the World survey released yesterday showed 32 per cent of Malaysians who cited religious and ethnic hatred as the biggest global threat today.

In contrast, 22 per cent Malaysians surveyed pointed to nuclear weapons, 16 per cent said environmental damage, 13 per cent cited increasing income inequality and 12 per cent highlighted AIDS and other diseases as major global threats.

In neighbouring Indonesia, home to the world’s biggest Muslim population, 26 per cent of its people polled also cited religious and ethnic divisions as the main threat to the world compared to other Southeast Asian nations like Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines which are more concerned with environmental issues.

Concerns about religious and ethnic hatred ranked the highest in Malaysia among Asian countries, followed by Bangladesh (30 per cent), Indonesia (26 per cent) and India (25 per cent).

The poll revealed that in Malaysia, Muslims (35 per cent) are more concerned than Buddhists (22 per cent) about religious and ethnic hatred.

The global survey of 44 countries among 48,643 respondents was conducted from March 17 to June 5, after the Court of Appeal ruled last October in favour of a government ban on a Catholic Church newspaper from using the word “Allah” to refer to God.

But Malaysian Christians’ battle for their right to use the Arabic word “Allah” for God is also not over as a Sabah evangelical church, the Sidang Injil Borneo’s (SIB) suit against the government over the seizure of its Christian educational books, is set for a retrial at the High Court.

Shortly before the survey was conducted, Muslim groups here protested in February against a satirical Chinese New Year video by DAP’s Seputeh MP Teresa Kok, which they alleged to be anti-Islam and anti-Malay.

In response to Kok’s video, the Muslim groups held up a banner warning of the “nightmares” of the bloody race riots on May 13, 1969 ― which resulted in the death of hundreds of Malaysians ― and slaughtered live chickens to demonstrate their displeasure during their protest.

In May, a seminar hosted by Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) saw several Muslim speakers, including from Indonesia, who branded Christian gospels as fake and denied the divinity of Jesus Christ ― drawing uproar from local Christian groups who denounced their allegations as as hate speech.

The period when the survey was conducted also follows a government clampdown on the minority Shiah Muslims in Sunni-controlled Malaysia, similar to an anti-Shiah movement launched by hardline Islamist groups in Indonesia.

At that time, Malaysian police had also arrested several people for militant activities that are believed to be related to the terror group Islamic State (IS).

Malaysia and Indonesia both subscribe to the Sunni school of Islam and Muslim religious officials have repeatedly said they do not tolerate any other denomination, viewing the others, including Shiah school as deviant teachings.

Racial and religious tension have continued to simmer in Malaysia the past few months, with at least three people being charged with sedition for “insulting” Islam or the royalty.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 18 October 2014, 7:27 am and is filed under
Islam
,
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.