Bridging the Gap

Posted on August 11, 2011 by Tricia

Is Malaysia getting more or less polarised? A version of this was published in theSun on 10th August 2011.

Bridging the Gap

In Thomas Friedman’s 2005 book “The World is Flat”, he predicted that with the advent of technology, the world would become a level playing field in an increasingly globalised environment. In such a wired world, there would be greater access to and a flourishing exchange of information and ideas.

Initially, this was thought to have brought upon cultural and socioeconomic uniformity in various aspects. Six years later, we know now the reality: how globalisation has not brought people together but has in fact shown up the frissures that already existed in society – and then drawn these separate poles slowly but surely apart.

Few leaders are willing to say this, as it is politically incorrect, but this is true also – and more deeply so – of Malaysia. These deep divisions exist when it comes to ethnicity, class, language, geography (imbalanced development between the different states), and as we have experienced intensely of late, religion.

Religion and Democracy 

Religion has always been considered somewhat sensitive and something people refrain from discussing openly. One can recount the cases of Moorthy, Revathi, Lina Joy, the Allah issue, church-burning, cow-head demonstration, and other recent events, with shaking heads as we observe the descent of reason.

And yet, religion ought to be the very bastion of democratic principles, should it not? At the Islamic Renaissance Front’s (IRF) recent forum on “Reappraising Liberty and Democracy”, speakers and participants contemplated how religion (Islam to be specific) is in fact foundational to democracy, the elements of which include liberty, freedom of speech, expression, religion and association.

Of course, one speaker admitted that the threat to liberty and democracy does not necessarily come from the people – faith practitioners – but from the state and institutions. This is an important insight, since we are acutely aware of how the state plays an extremely prominent role in guiding the practice of religion in this country. And how exactly has the state governed faith?

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life’s “Rising Restrictions on Religion” report released recently showed that restrictions on religious beliefs and practices rose between 2006 and 2009 in 23 of the world’s 198 countries. Malaysia was one of the 10 countries cited as having “very high government restrictions” as of mid-2009, ranking the 7th highest amongst the top 5% countries with very high restrictions.

In fact, only two countries made it into the “Very High” category of “Countries with Substantial Increases in Government Restrictions”: Egypt and Malaysia. Some of these restrictions include references to government monitors of Muslim groups that are considered unorthodox, and these deviants being sent to religious rehabilitation centres.

Bridging the Divide 

It seems almost impossible now to bridge the gaping divide between what people perceive as polar opposites. Note that it is not just inter-religious but intra-religious divisions that exist. Within Islam, there are variations between the different schools of thought – Sunni, Shia, Wahabi, and so on. Within Christianity, there are variations between Catholics, Protestants, Pentecostals, and so on.

Efforts have been made through the years at bringing people together from different faith communities, largely driven by civil society. The Malaysian Interfaith Network (MIN), the Inter-faith Spiritual Fellowship (INSaF), and the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) are such examples.

But there are also failures to speak of. The Inter-Faith Commission (IFC) of 2006 was a stillborn due to mistrust of the organisation’s objectives. And most recently, the Prime Minister’s Department struggled and then failed, to set up an interfaith committee.

Without proper avenues to truly learn about each other’s religions, does it really come as a surprise then that people have difficulty understanding ‘the other’? In any debate or misunderstanding, it is most important to listen, observe, be truly conscious of the other person’s motivations and fears. This is not happening today.

We need to create safe spaces for young Malaysians (and maybe the old too) to share their faith stories. Technology can be harnessed for the right reasons, in uniting people as opposed to creating further silos in our already divided polity.

When Nelson Mandela finally took over in South Africa, he established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission after apartheid, in hopes of resolving conflict from the past. Malaysia has very many unresolved wounds that it will one day need great healing from. But first we have to recognise there do exist increasing divisions. Then we must be willing to set aside prejudices to start afresh in understanding each other. And then – making use of our critical, thinking minds to separate fact from fiction; reason from political jargon.

It is admittedly an extremely tough nut to crack. But perhaps, instead of policies and laws that create further divisions and drive opposing sides further apart, state apparatuses and institutions (this includes political parties) could pursue singlemindedly the objective of seeing religion as a healing balm, a bridge, a connector.

We have to start somewhere. Anywhere.

This column is dedicated to the late Dr. John Gurusamy, coordinator of the Malaysian Interfaith Network, who passed away on 6th August 2011.

Posted in Ethno-Religious Politics, Reflections, Religion | Leave a comment

Why Everything is Political

Posted on August 9, 2011 by Tricia

Why Everything is Political

There is a tendency for people to complain in loud groans how everything is oh-so-political these days. The fact is that, yes, everything is in fact political. Especially so in a country like Malaysia where decision-making is highly centralised and ultimately concentrated on the few that make up the Cabinet within the Federal Government.

Sure, in an ideal world, there ought to be more than one way to bring about change. We envision a situation in which the media, civil society and labour unions have equal power in lobbying for policy reform, and although efforts are being made to strengthen these institutions, the sad reality is we are far from achieving this in Malaysia.

So, although one might be disgusted by underhanded tactics employed by political parties and individuals, one must equally understand that nothing can change unless it goes through the political route given the current climate. Everything is ultimately political and we shall see why.

At a Student Leaders’ Conference I spoke at recently at Universiti Malaya, the question was posed to all panelists as to how we would define “politics”. One fellow speaker answered that politics was the process of standing up for the rights one deserves; another that politics is the process through which power is obtained, which in turn is used for administering public good.

I gave examples of how gathering a group of people together under any setting would then undergo a political process of nominating and electing a leader. There would also be the dynamics involved; identifying people who are influencers, taking positions and sides on issues of concern, debating these matters, and so on. This can be observed even within the setting of a family, classroom, students’ union, labour union, and of course at the larger scale of the nation.

Malaysians are eager to talk about public issues these days. Countless forums, conferences, talks are being organised almost weekly, clogging up halls over weekends. This is a positive sign that we are wanting to engage instead of sweeping things under the carpet, but at the end of every forum the question always remains the same: What can be done? My answer would be, again, that because of the nature of our system, one has to go through the political route. Some examples are given below.

  • Scandals: There are scores of these one can recall in an instance, flooding our online newsfeeds as if a Pandora’s Box has just been opened. Let’s just take the Port Klang Free Zone incident. After theSun exposed correspondences and the fact that letters of guarantee were issued to PKFZ to raise bonds, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) then summoned officials to answer questions on the project. A series of events followed, including a PriceWaterhouseCoopers report, and finally a series of charges and arrests took place. Although there are individuals who have certainly gone unpunished, without political pressure from the opposition, the PAC would not have sprung into action.
  • Addressing poverty: In addressing poverty issues, the Federal government a long time ago introduced the New Economic Policy (NEP) which contained affirmative action policies that benefited the Bumiputera community, but have been severely abused and misused. Pakatan Rakyat in its economic proposals is proposing an alternative economic policy that is needs-based, thereby allowing all those from various races in need to benefit from it. It was only following the criticisms to the abuse of the NEP (by academics, think tanks, Opposition, civil society) that the government in fact later proposed liberalisation measures in its New Economic Model (NEM), largely similar to the Opposition’s proposals. For national wealth to trickle down effectively to appropriate poor communities, again it is those making decisions at political institutions who need to be lobbied.
  • Quality of education: Probably one of the greatest concerns of parents these days is the quality of education, thereby determining the schools that their children attend. Low salaries already make the teaching profession an undesirable career, hence the poor quality of teachers – added to this is the poor selection of textbook material, bias towards Islamic education within national syllabus and the lack of representation of non-Malays contributing to the country’s history. These are all obviously politically motivated and again, one must resort to political pressure to influence change within the Education Ministry and Teachers’ Training Colleges.

These are just samples of the numerous problems our country is faced with today. Other pressing issues include crime and security, corruption, wages, inflation, and economic growth.

The point I am making is that precisely because these are everyday issues that will invariably affect the lives of you and those around you, we should simply stop demonising politics as it were. As those sitting in the cushy middle space between the presently polarised political forces, there is a tendency for us to follow political news keenly – sometimes even leave comments on articles we are interested in – but otherwise laugh mockingly at the actual players in the game because all that is quite beneath us.

But the truth of the matter is that whichever pet peeve we have of the circumstances surrounding us, we will continue to heavily depend on the political forces that be to institute the change we desperately need. Whether this takes place through the official routes of government committees, ministries, political parties, or non-governmental associations (which in turn have close links with political parties, and which is natural as they require lobbying, and this happens all over the world).

Until the day we achieve a robust and independent media, civil society, labour union and student body, (all of which we should continue to promote), let us accept the fact that everything is political. And then we can do something about it, either by actually participating in the process or then influencing for change with the right parameters in mind.

Posted in Civil Society, Economics, General Politics, The Cause | Leave a comment

Keep solid waste local

Posted on August 8, 2011 by Tricia

Solid waste management – to keep it under the local councils, or to privatise it to a national and long-term concession holder? My piece in Penang Monthly in August 2011 argues against privatising it.

Keep solid waste local

The centralisation of solid waste management into private hands bodes ill for the country. The structure is fully reminiscent of the chaos that followed water privatisation, and chosen companies will enjoy long-term concessions and generous grants without suffering competition. The federal government has not learned from its past mistakes.

On a Malaysian online directory listing, Alam Flora Sdn Bhd’s description of itself reads: “We’ve been entrusted by the Government to manage the privatisation of the national solid waste management system for Selangor, Wilayah Persekutuan and Pahang.” This must be an outdated website, as the Housing and Local Government Minister Datuk Chor Chee Heung’s recent written Parliamentary reply stated that the federal government’s plan to privatise solid waste management would not include the states of Penang, Selangor and Perak.

In this column last year, I wrote about the federal government’s plans to privatise solid waste management based on the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (“The Act”). At the time, negotiations were ongoing between the federal government, state governments and private concession companies, namely Alam Flora (to take over solid waste management in the central zone of Peninsular Malaysia), E-Idaman (northern zone) and Southern Waste Management (southern zone). Several months later, it was confirmed that the legislation will take effect on September 1, 2011.

Background

Prior to the passing of the Act, numerous problems with solid waste management had been in existence, namely the issues of waste generation (Malaysia produces 25,000 tons of waste daily and this is increasing steadily), waste collection (inconsistent and inefficient collection) and waste disposal (not enough waste is recycled and landfills no longer have space). Passed in 2007, the Act states that the federal government shall “have executive authority with respect to all matters relating to the management of solid waste and public cleansing throughout Peninsular Malaysia and the Federal Territories of Putrajaya and Labuan”, with the intention of centralising solid waste management activities at the federal government, effectively removing this responsibility from local authorities.

What does the Act actually allow for? First, it gives significant control of solid waste management to the director-general of Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management. It also states that no person is allowed to undertake, manage or operate any services related to solid waste management unless he is granted a licence under the Act. The implementation of the Act will involve the setting up of two bodies, one to regulate and another responsible for operations, namely the Department of National Solid Waste Management as the regulatory body and the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Corporation in charge of operations. Privatisation will include collecting household and similar waste; cleaning the streets, drains and beaches; and clearing the trash piles.

Under the definition of the Act, “solid waste management facilities”  means any land, fixed or mobile plant and systems incorporating structures and equipment used or intended to be used for the handling, storage, separation, transport, transfer, processing, recycling, treatment and disposal of controlled solid waste, and includes transfer stations, disposal sites, sanitary landfill, incinerators and other thermal treatment plants, recycling plants and composting plants.

Pakatan states in disagreement

The Minister stated that the decision not to include several states in the new arrangement was not political in nature. He is right in this regard, since it is these state governments themselves that are not willing to join the scheme.

Both the Penang and Selangor state governments have clarified their positions clearly. Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng gave three reasons for rejecting the privatisation plans; where first, the state government would not be able to ensure the highest level of service by contractors and would be held responsible for complaints. Second, the selection of contractors is done through limited (and not open) tender, and there is no guarantee of the best price, quality and management. Finally, he said that this erodes the existing powers of the state.

In Selangor, the local government committee chairman and executive councillor Ronnie Liu said the state government would prefer to administer solid waste management services through local authorities, where privatisation would encumber the system with further bureaucracy and deprive ratepayers of efficient service.

It is interesting to note that the Perak state government is also not on board the federal government privatisation scheme, although discussions are still taking place.

What is the real deal? 

Prior to the Act’s implementation, local councils administer solid waste management by contracting out these services to private concession companies. Some local councils take on the responsibilities on their own, like the Hulu Selangor local authority in Selangor. However, in the past, local council management has not been a financially viable solution, where almost 40% of local council revenues are used for solid waste management.

The federal government defends the move to privatise solid waste with several points. First, it says that people would now experience better solid waste disposal and cleaning of public areas without having to pay extra as the federal government would bear the additional cost for the increase in quality. Second, companies will be given key performance indicators (KPIs) and must perform based on these.

These are fundamentally flawed arguments, if one looks closer at the real deal.

How things will actually work is as follows. The two new bodies (the Department of Solid Waste Management and the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Corporation) will likely have offices at city, town and district levels. This will involve the employment of hundreds of staff at these offices to conduct both regulatory and operational work. The estimated salaries of these hundreds of employees across the country should be calculated as part of the costs involved, and ought to be publicly disclosed.

Secondly, although people would not be paying, this is true only for the first five to seven years. The Minister himself has said that “after the KPIs are fulfilled and people feel satisfied with the services, we will start charging”. This means that starting from 2016, residents will have to pay a “solid waste management” bill directly to concession companies, in the way we pay for water supply services to Syabas currently. It is misleading to say that the federal government will cover all costs, as this is only for a temporary period. To date, no fee schedule has been made available.

Third, even if funds were coming from the federal government, these are effectively tax-payers’ money, which renders it necessary to ensure every Ringgit is being used most efficiently and for the right purposes. Under the Act, a Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Fund will be established, sums of which will be contributed by the state government and local authority, as well as moneys from the federal government. According to newspaper reports, the companies will be receiving between RM500mil and RM600mil a year from the federal government, what is essentially an interest-free grant on top of what they would receive as assessment fees from households.

Privatisation is not the way to go

On principle, this entire privatisation scheme is something Malaysians should be wary of. The quality of service provided to households would not necessarily change, since the concession companies being contracted are actually the same as at present. The only differences are that there will now be a regulatory body and an operations body that will keep track of their adherence to KPIs, and a large sum of money given to them annually.

This goes down the exact same track as that of water privatisation. The federal government has not learned from its past mistakes. These concession companies will have no incentive to perform as they are given long-term concessions and generous grants from the federal government, and with little competition. What guarantee is there that the three companies will perform any better than at current levels, despite given stringent KPIs?

Secondly, as I have argued previously, the move to centralise policy matters goes against the nature of Federalism that Malaysia is supposed to practice. State and local governments are given certain jurisdictions precisely because they are better placed to manage and oversee conditions at the residential areas. By taking these away, not much else is left, and worse – local councils, councillors and state representatives will not be able to respond to people’s grievances on solid waste.

Finally, some real issues will have to be dealt with, including negotiating for taking over solid waste management assets belonging to local councils and the eventual fee schedule paid to concessionaires by households. The decision by both Penang and Selangor – and Perak – not to participate in this privatisation is a bold one, but it also remains to be seen how innovative these states will be in managing the problem of solid waste management on their own.

Posted in Public Administration, Selangor | Leave a comment

When we begin to doubt

Posted on July 28, 2011 by Tricia

When the RCI on Teoh Beng Hock’s death was released, I was appalled at its findings, especially certain paragraphs which others have now described as “bad fiction”. This was my piece in theSun on 27th July 2011 on my analysis of it.

When we begin to doubt

The much-awaited Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) report into Teoh Beng Hock’s death, and manner of interrogation by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) was finally released publicly last week, but has instead led to more questions.

The report gave scathing remarks and severe admonishing of three specific MACC officers, finding they had used “continuous, aggressive, and improper questioning tactics on [Teoh] which had breached its existing standard operating procedures”. It also found that, ultimately, Teoh was driven to commit suicide and gave detailed reasons for this.

Numerous parties have responded to these RCI conclusions, amongst which a former criminal investigation chief stating that the three MACC officers can be charged for Abetment of Suicide under Section 306 of the Penal Code. Naturally, there is a lot of anger directed towards these MACC officers who seem to have shown gross misconduct, negligence, and “a total lack of consideration for human sensitivities” in the entire affair.

That the three behaved in the most oppressive and unscrupulous manner is something that most agree on.

But to come to the conclusion that these interrogation tactics “drove” someone to commit suicide is a step further, and a grave conclusion indeed. The Malaysian Bar, for example, in its statement disagreed with the RCI finding that Teoh had committed suicide, as it is “unsupported by facts and evidence”.

It does seem a leap that the RCI makes, for many reasons, only two of which are explored here.

First, and this is a crucial distinction to make: it was important to establish whether or not the deceased was conscious at the time of death. Whilst all pathologists brought in to examine the case agreed that Teoh was alive upon landing, whether he was conscious or not was deliberated upon at length. This finding would impact upon one’s conclusion as to the manner of his death.

In the RCI report, it says that “it was also agreed by them that TBH was conscious when he fell”, where “them” referred to “all the forensic pathologists who testified before us” in a previous sentence. However, this is inaccurate, as Dr. Porntip Rojanasunan, the Thai forensic pathologist, had testified at the RCI that the fractured injuries to Teoh’s leg were not necessarily indicative of his being conscious upon impact. She had also indicated there were possible pre-fall injuries. To say that all pathologists categorically agreed that Teoh was conscious when he fell is actually misleading.

Second, the RCI report refers to forensic psychiatrist Professor Paul Mullen’s comments. Quoting from the report, “TBH, according to Mullen, ‘was firmly in the lowest risk group for suicide when he was taken into MACC custody’ ”, an opinion formed based on Teoh’s personality and behaviour at the time.

The RCI then concludes on its own accord in a later paragraph that “when he was taken by Anuar on the 15th, TBH shifted psychologically from the low-risk group to the high-risk group for suicide”. Note that the expert psychiatrist himself did not come to the conclusion of this sudden change from “low-risk” to “high-risk”. The RCI members gave several reasons for this, which included: a high-pressured series of interviews, the circumstances surrounding the case, sleep deprivation, an unfamiliar environment and being held in custody which all led to “doubt, extreme emotional conflict and the immense feeling of guilt”.

Here, the question is whether or not a qualified psychiatrist would make the same assessment, that Teoh went from being in a “low-risk” group for suicide to a “high-risk” one. The RCI members came to this conclusion without any clear supporting testimony from any of the three external qualified experts in the field of psychiatry who were called upon to testify. This report has otherwise dutifully based its conclusions on authoritative testimonies, but on this key issue, the conclusion is reached with the least amount of supporting evidence and expert testimony.

Since Teoh’s death, there have been other incidents that have occupied media space, and consequently the minds of Malaysians, including the unfortunate death of customs officer Ahmad Sarbani, also found at the MACC premises.

Many institutions set up to provide recommendations to improve the systemic rot have failed to be effective. One need only recall the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC), Interfaith Committee, and SUHAKAM recommendations as examples.

Whether or not the MACC will take up recommendations of the RCI following the Teoh Beng Hock tragedy, there are fundamental questions that arise from its conclusion of suicide.

As Malaysians, we have a right to expect the state’s institutions to protect us. We ought to be confident in, and not fear the very apparatus set up for the sake of its citizens. However, it is when people begin to cast doubt on these institutions that the government must be aware of a deep distrust, lest all its efforts at reform prove futile.

Posted in General Politics, Selangor, The Cause | Leave a comment

Effecting Real Change: Political or Non-Partisan?

Posted on July 14, 2011 by Tricia

One of the most hotly contested issues surrounding Bersih 2.0, Bersih 3.0 and the movement was whether it was political or not. I think this is reflective of how we individually feel – how do we help the nation best, by being non-partisan or going down the political route? A version of this was published in theSun on 13th July 2011.

Effecting Real Change: Political or Non-Partisan?

Young Malaysians want to impact society but are struggling to figure out precisely how to go about doing so. I had the privilege of meeting with a group of young Malaysian students, all recruits under an excellent internship programme called “Otak-Otak” recently.

The programme places students from local and foreign universities in various governmental, non-governmental and private sector organisations for two months, and organises events where they would be exposed to discussions on a range of issues. This particular informal session, hosted by the Centre for Public Policy Studies (and sponsored by Citibank), for example, allowed an interactive conversation on youth involvement, civil society, political trends and national development.

Whilst the dialogue traversed topics on the education system, the economy, brain drain, Bersih 2.0, the role of the media and the country’s future direction, one key trend emerged.

It was obvious that all of them follow political developments closely, and are acutely aware of the twists and turns taken by Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat (and, well, Perkasa), mainly through the online medium. This, after all, is the “clicktivism” generation whose “Likes” on Facebook or “Follows” on Twitter define their positions taken on politics and government.

However, it was revealing that when asked whether or not they would see themselves working in a full-time position over the next five to ten years within the civil service, non-governmental organisation, think tank, media or active civil society, with the objective of contributing to national development, only four out of the 42 responded positively. The rest either felt it would be futile to fight the system, or preferred to work in a more productive environment such as within the private sector.

The Trend of Non-Partisanship

There was also a strong indication that they would rather work within a non-partisan and independent organisation, preferring not to be affiliated with any one side. This is a trend that is strangely enough creeping upon many Malaysians, even those who were once vocally opposing government policies.

Perhaps this is to do with disillusionment of both sides – Barisan or Pakatan – where they perceive neither has delivered upon concrete policies, or lived up to what was originally promised. Whether or not the disillusionment is justified is a different matter altogether, since there is much one can say about equal access to media, resources and machinery, all of which affect communication strategy and delivery.

The success of Bersih 2.0, for example, in garnering support from a large cross-section of society, is equally telling of current sentiments, where it is becoming increasingly popular to call oneself part of ‘civil society’, this ever-evolving and often undefinable entity.

One can indeed understand the reluctance of people to be directly involved in political parties or government; we have witnessed the childish descent into gutter politics, outright lies, ridiculous statements, and would not wish ourselves a part of this crude ugliness.

One can also understand that because of this, there is an increased interest in starting initiatives outside the formal political process. And there are multiple such “third party” movements these days, including the likes of Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia, LoyarBurok, Bersih 2.0, and a host of traditional non-governmental associations. These platforms are not directly political per se, but they certainly have political content that push the boundaries and urge critical social action for political change.

Maximum Impact 

These students, alongside almost every concerned Malaysian citizen today, are cracking their heads at this national crossroads of sorts. Knowing the landscape of politics that we have today, the question remains: What should I do to ensure my involvement leads to maximum impact for the country’s future?

In an ideal world, civil society ought to occupy as legitimate a position as political parties in pushing for change. This, we believe, is the fifth pillar (after the Executive, Judiciary, Legislative, and the media) in instituting governance and policy reform, where non-partisan civil society organisations are given a valid voice. The pressures placed by a loud enough community ought to nudge along those in power, making them sit up and listen.

And although this is an ideal I would still hold strongly to, the reality is that the channels of decision-making still remain largely within the hands of political parties through representation at Parliament, and ultimately the Cabinet. This raises the question of how social movements ought to be conducted within such an environment: can civil society push through a movement and gain significant traction, without needing support from any political party? (Read: How people criticise Bersih 2.0 as being ‘hijacked’ by the Opposition.)

Ultimately, until and unless civil society – or any non-partisan body – is recognised as an equal partner within formal committees, taskforces and the like for the purposes of policy reform, there will still be a tendency for political parties to be relied upon to advance a particular cause.

We ended the session by saying that it is important to do anything, in whatever capacity, affiliation and position, excellently. It is true that Malaysians of all walks of life, whether in the corporate, public or non-governmental sector, have a significant role to play in contributing to the country’s future.

But for maximum impact through a massive shakeup of government policy and corrupt practices? Apart from traditionally going the political route, Bersih 2.0 has shown that an alternative does exist. But only time will tell if this will result in real electoral reform.

Posted in Elections, General Politics, Reflections | Leave a comment

Local democracy alive and kicking in Pakatan states

Posted on July 8, 2011 by Tricia

Although civil society is disappointed that Pakatan states didn’t implement local elections in its first term, nevertheless there were achievements to this end: local village, mosque committee elections and more – first published in the Penang Monthly’s July 2011 issue.

Local democracy alive and kicking in Pakatan states

The ambition to enhance local democracy remains strong in Pakatan Rakyat (Pakatan) states. So far, no help has come from the Election Commission, but the initiatives that have nevertheless been taken to elect local councillors, village heads and mosque committee members are impressive.

In a PEM column last year, I wrote extensively about local government elections and the laws and policies governing them in Malaysia. At that point, both the state governments of Penang and Selangor had written to the Election Commission to request for local government elections to be held in their states. The response was negative, and the 11-page reply stated that the National Council of Local Government would have to give its approval first, and since this had not been done, local elections were not possible. The Local Government Act 1974 and the Federal Constitution were both cited as a reason for its refusal to take on the task of conducting local elections.

These were not watertight reasons and it is clear it simply was not interested in exploring the matter further.

Almost a year later, the situation seems to be changing rapidly, with both state governments making some – albeit not as rapidly as some would like it – headway in implementing local polls in one way or other. It is important to note that local elections are not an entirely new concept – it was conducted in the past but was suspended in 1965 by the government during the Confrontation period between Malaysia and Indonesia. Civil society activists have long campaigned for the return of local elections since, as it is the most basic way in which people can involve themselves in public decision-making, especially where matters that affect them directly are concerned. This is true both in the monitoring of the use of their own public funds and in reaping the benefits of public service delivery on a daily basis.

Local council elections

The parties that later formed Pakatan were quick to take a position on the matter, placing the re-enactment of local elections as a goal in their 2008 General Election manifestoes. In fact, the previous Perak state government under Pakatan was the first to restore local elections, electing all 817 Malay village chiefs in the state. However, these were sacked after Perak was taken over by the Barisan Nasional (Barisan) government. In Penang, mock local elections were held during a “Penang Forum 3”, in which 10 nominees were elected, but not all of these were later appointed by the state government into the council. Under the Local Government Act 1974 state governments are to appoint local councillors, and the hope was that an election – whether valid or not – could become consequential if the government and its appointments followed the election results.

In Selangor, the state government has recently proposed that 30% of the 24 local councillors be open for election. These are basically seats for groups other than political parties. The pilot partial election is most likely to be conducted at the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ), and as announced by state executive councillors, it is to be held by the end of 2011. An eight-person task force consisting of members of the State Economic Planning Unit (Upen) and representatives of the Coalition of Good Governance (CGG) has been set up to adopt rules and regulations for the local election.

Although these are strides in a positive direction, there have been criticisms that the Pakatan state governments are not serious about pushing all the way for full local elections to be conducted. There is of course the very real political tension that Pakatan would surely be considering, namely that of balancing the formidable Barisan-led federal government breathing down its neck, and local councillors who can potentially be critical of its administration. Theoretically, all three levels of government, local, state and federal, ought to operate independently of the other, but the reality is that for smooth implementation of policies all three must each have some level of understanding with the others.

Local village head elections

Efforts towards local elections have not been relegated solely to local councils. The Pakatan states have been putting this into practice in other unique areas as well. For example, Selangor has allocated RM60,000 to conduct local elections for three of its Chinese new villages, namely Kampung Baru Sungai Jarom in Jenjarom, Kampung Bagan in Pulau Ketam and Kampung Baru Pandamaran. The nomination days begin from July 24, and polling days are on July 31 and August 7 and 14 respectively for each of them, with each village having a week-long campaign period. Again, because the Election Commission will not be party to local polls, it will be conducted entirely by the local councils.

The success of these polls for village chiefs will be an indication of how ready the rest of the state is in electing representatives at the local level. It promises not only to educate the locals on the process of voting for their local community heads, but also to familiarise public servants working in local councils with the reasons behind such elections and with the workings of the mechanisms required. This is experience that will prove extremely valuable in the future, if and when Pakatan states decide to go full-swing on local council elections.

Mosque committee elections 

The decision to conduct local elections has not been without controversy of course. The Penang state government’s decision to allow mosque committees to be elected as opposed to being appointed has been politicised by the United Malays National Organisation (Umno) and Utusan Malaysia. In the past, the Penang Islamic Religious Council (MAIPP) appointed individuals or groups without necessarily seeking the views of residents in the mosque’s vicinity. The idea of conducting elections is to ensure such residents have a say in who represents them as mosque administrators.

The dispute lies in the argument that mosque committee members have the potential to be politically powerful and to determine the direction of the mosque. By allowing residents to vote, this in essence makes for a more transparent system of having individuals who are not political representatives or nominees, but have gotten the position based on their morals and merits.

The federal government, through Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Jamil Khir Baharom, has said that all Islamic affairs in the states ruled by appointed governors (Yang di-Pertua Negeri, which is the case in Penang), come under the jurisdiction of the King (Yang di-Pertuan Agong). Penang’s state exco on religious affairs has clarified that the King is the final decision-maker on mosque committees, and therefore “His Majesty’s prior approval to conduct committee elections is not an issue” since names of elected individuals would in any case be submitted for endorsement by the King. Some 4,485 people have offered to fill up 4,530 posts in 151 of the 200 mosques in Penang, where elections will be conducted, possibly at their annual general meetings.

In fact, this should not have been raised as an issue at all because Selangor had already begun conducting mosque committee elections as far back as in 2009. Selangor was the first state to hold democratic elections of mosque committees (June 2009) and surau committees (June 2010). Experience has shown that a greater number of professionals have now been elected as committee members, and that locals are more empowered now. Similar to the practice elsewhere, the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (MAIS) would in the past appoint political individuals and it is also speculated these were often heads of party divisions. There are 525 mosques and 1,980 suraus in Selangor.

There are bound to be numerous hiccups along the way, but the trend is an optimistic one. The perseverance displayed by the Pakatan states given the odds is rather remarkable and it is hoped that things can only improve from here on. If all politics is local, then polls at the local councils, villages, and mosques are a good sign that democracy is alive and kicking in Pakatan states.

Posted in Elections, Public Administration, The Cause | Leave a comment

Assimilation vs. Integration

Posted on July 8, 2011 by Tricia

First published in Selangor Times in July 2011, a topic that always seems to be current in Malaysia.

Assimilation vs. Integration

Last weekend, I was invited to speak at an event organised by the Ministry of Youth and Sports together with the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS), “Forum Generasi Muda”, a forum for youth aged between 18 and 40 years. It was a positive sign that panelists with views that were obviously not pro-government were invited to share on a range of issues including economics, culture, gender, and allowed to freely comment on Malaysia’s political situation.

The theme of the 3-day event was, of course, 1Malaysia (what else could it have been?), and how the concept should be developed further in numerous areas. Although the discussion was positive, there is a tendency for such events to end on a fluffy note, where participants and speakers call for unity in diversity, make a grand show of it and end with a warm buzz.

Former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamed’s lunch dialogue was particularly provocative in that his analysis of race and politics in Malaysia seemed fairly outdated. His reasoning went as such: that it is because Malaysia has chosen the option of integration and not assimilation that we are as fragmented as we are today.

His example was that of foreign Muslims, like the Indonesians and Arabs, who have no problems assimilating with the local Malay culture in all forms including language, religion and way of life. They then become accepted as part of the “Malay” entity, whereby original Malays themselves have no problems extending such privileges enjoyed to them.

This almost seems like an indictment on those who choose not to be assimilated, such as the Chinese and Indians, for by choosing to maintain distinct cultures, they do not therefore receive those similar privileges as granted to those who do assimilate. I wonder whether this is the sort of logic that can really be applied within a country that encourages ‘unity in diversity’. Or is this diversity that the government stands for one that is qualified?

And that only if his argument is accurate, where Malaysians of different ethnicities grow apart and isolated from the other. His assertion that “race relations are worse today than in the past” may be bolstered by the media hype of it in recent years, but my response is that there is a great deal more assimilation taking place than he would care to acknowledge.

On the same weekend, I watched a play entitled “Parah” by Alfian Saat, based loosely on Yasmin Ahmad’s movie “Talentime” and the novel “Interlok”. The latter is a compulsory text for schoolchildren and has been embroiled in controversy over the last year. The play depicted a multiethnic group of friends in Form 5 whose friendships slowly deteriorate as they uncover their sentiments on race, brought upon by derogatory references in the said novel.

Although the play’s characters were stereotypical of characteristics of each ethnicity (Chinese badminton player, Indian insecurity), one of the points Saat drives home is that there is a great deal more assimilation by the non-Malay communities that is taking place. The Indian boy cannot speak Tamil to save his life, the Chinese cannot speak Mandarin and feels extremely uncomfortable in China whilst on holiday – all feel most at ease in their home Malay language.

The key questions are therefore: One, what is the degree of assimilation? What have the trends been in the past and at present, and has this changed significantly? And two, how should a policymaker approach communities that do assimilate vs. those who do not – and whether it is fair for such discrimination to take place based on this factor alone, given the call for diversity and encouraging a multitude of various cultural heritages to co-exist in the country.

The first question would require some serious sociological research to be carried out, to quantify “assimilation”. To compare and contrast between assimilation rates over the years, data dating from the last several decades would be needed. Some of the factors contributing to assimilation would be, I imagine, the ability to speak in the national language, the sense of national ownership, and subscribing to a fixed set of common values and so on, although the latter is probably non-existent.

However, in the absence of such methodological research, and acknowledging the different cultural and religious norms already in existence today, I would hope for policies that address citizenship. The argument that a particular group has not adopted the culture of the majority race, thereby validating its lack of equal access to the nation’s resources, is flawed. Especially so in the case of Malaysia, the minority ethnic groups of which have existed for centuries, in many cases pre-dating the arrival of other nationalities that did assimilate into the Malay culture.

Far from being able to remove ‘race’ from the national psyche, this last weekend threw in my face the reality that Malaysians have not yet cleansed ourselves from this theme. It is well and good to speak on it, to greater and more deeply comprehend its impact on society, but at some point this discourse has to move on. This is the role individual citizens have to take up, in encouraging ideological debate on class, economics, poverty eradication, income levels, equity and distribution.

Posted in Ethno-Religious Politics | Leave a comment

Manage Water Demand instead

Posted on June 30, 2011 by Tricia

The water issue is constantly being played out in the media. I’ve written numerous articles on water, and here was the first one published in theSun on 29th June 2011.

Manage Water Demand instead 

In the Malaysian water story, two things took place this week which reminded me of the need for public utilities – particularly the water industry – to be governed efficiently without vested interests. I am not sure we have achieved this standard in Malaysia quite yet.

At a Water Demand Management workshop I attended earlier this week, organised by a local think-tank Research for Social Advancement (REFSA) and conducted by an environmental expert from Malaysian Nature Society, participants concluded that there was a need to move towards demand-driven management to sustain water supply.

This is in contrast to the supply-driven planning that is currently the case. What this just means is that in determining the amount of water required for domestic and non-domestic users, the onus lies upon the government – together with community and civil society – to encourage reduced usage of water through education, enforcement and a host of incentives.

This could be done through a number of means, for example installing water-efficient plumbing fixtures in new homes and buildings, providing water conservation kits to homes, water-efficiency labelling schemes for plumbing fixtures and washing machines, vouchers to households to install high-efficiency toilets as well as – and this would be a potentially sensitive subject – increasing water tariffs to discourage mindless usage.

Some seminar participants seemed uncomfortable with the latter proposal for several reasons. First, it is always controversial whenever prices are increased, something politicians are well aware of. However, the second and more important point raised was the lack of transparency and knowledge of how water producers are making use of its profits.

Herein lies the rub: people may be willing to spend more to receive top quality water and excellent water services from a consumer’s point of view. But especially in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur where water quality has been less than favourable, coupled with a monopoly water distributor that has in the past been accused of dubious practices, increasing water bills may be extremely difficult at present.

Of course, this comes amidst a long-drawn out battle for the water industry in Selangor, where the process of its restructuring has gone through several rounds of negotiations but with little end in sight. The objective of the restructuring, as originally conceived by the Federal Government in 2006, was to essentially return management and ownership of the water industry back to the state, reversing the wrongs of privatisation that was earlier so eagerly pursued.

Mega-Projects All Over Again 

Managing water demand basically ensures that people behave more conservatively when it comes to water consumption. If demand is reduced, there would be more than sufficient supply to meet the needs of society. Today, Selangor’s water supply is more than sufficient for the 5 million residents of the Klang Valley, although the concern is what happens in several years, in year 2016 and beyond. For example, total water demand in 2009 in Selangor was 2650mld (million litres per day), and production capacity still stands at a comfortable 4476mld although the non-revenue water (NRW) rates are very high at 32.5 percent.

The ideal situation is for the government at all levels – Federal, state and local – to work together towards demand management. No such programme seems to be in place, the burden of responsibility of which lies with the National Water Services Commission (SPAN) as the water regulator. If they were to embark seriously on this, water consumption levels would stabilise. In the workshop, examples were given of cities with rapid economic growth (Adelaide and Melbourne amongst others) whose water consumption was even lower than that of Selangor. The ratio of water use to GDP usually declines, according to the UN World Water Development Report.

Unfortunately, the government continues to look for mega-projects as a starry-eyed solution. The Pahang-Selangor Water Transfer Project, for example, would cost Malaysian tax-payers (not just in Selangor, mind you) a hefty sum of RM10 billion. Under the plan, Selangor will pay Pahang 10 sen per cubic metre of water, and this involves the construction of several infrastructure monsters: the Kelau Dam, a 44.6km-long tunnel, and a water treatment plant. These have damaging environmental impacts; the Orang Asli would need to be resettled for the dam’s construction.

The most surprising is Energy, Green Technology and Water Minister Peter Chin’s announcement this week that all states in the peninsula would likely be linked with a pipe network to allow water to be transferred to “meet a sudden surge in demand or counter the effects of a prolonged drought.” So, not only Selangor would be recipient of such large water tunnels but the whole of peninsula Malaysia, subject to approval of all state governments.

One can only begin to imagine the cost of such a large mega-pipe network to connect all states in a grand scheme of ensuring water sustainability, financial burdens of which fall smack on Malaysians.

The Minister also stated that the state government has refused to work with the Federal Government on the water issue in Selangor. Funny – I had the impression that both parties wanted the same outcome but it was the elusive water concession company that was the more demanding of the lot.

It is clear that there is no single consolidated water policy for the country, at least not yet. If there were one, this writer hopes it involves managing water demand as a priority before rushing head-on to yet another large-scale construction project.

Posted in Economics, Selangor, Water | Leave a comment

Reversing the brain drain requires a paradigm shift

Posted on June 16, 2011 by Tricia

In this piece, I explored what roles state governments ought to play in reversing brain drain and attracting talent. It’s not enough to rely on the Malaysian Talent Corporation. First published in the Penang Monthly in June 2011.

Reversing the brain drain requires a paradigm shift

The brain drain is not a simple issue of migration. The competition for the highly skilled, given globalisation and urbanisation, occurs between cities more than between countries.Good working conditions are paramount, and are detrimentally affected by principles of political inequality.

When the World Bank launched its Malaysian Economic Monitor’s “Brain Drain” issue, I received a hurried call from a friend. His contact, the chief author of the report, was concerned that the matter would be kept under wraps by the Malaysian government, and hoped that it could be disseminated far and wide and discussed openly. The concern was that it painted Malaysia in a bad light, and this indictment on the country would be a slap in the government’s face, perhaps. The report made no apologies for the situation at hand: that Malaysia has suffered significantly over the last decade, having lost its best talents to other more developed nations.

More specifically, it stated that there are an estimated one million Malaysians living outside the country, one-third of whom belong in the “brain drain” category. Out of this, almost 60% live in Singapore, out of whom more than 90% are of Chinese ethnicity. Although career prospects were the primary reason cited, other reasons included the lack of social justice, governance issues and the lack of meritocracy. Non-Malays in particular are those who have felt the pinch of unfair treatment most, and not wanting to feel like “second-class citizens”, leave for fairer lands.

The thing is, much ink has already been spilt over the New Economic Policy, Bumiputera rights and ethnic-based affirmative action. The point has already been made. There is dispute over whether or not to end these policies, between those who have benefited and stand to continue benefiting from it – and those who have experienced direct discrimination as a result thereof.

No need for colour in policies 

And it is this crux of the matter that the Pakatan Rakyat (Pakatan) is attempting to address. For all its song and dance (and there are a lot of such antics – after all, this is politics), Pakatan has never abandoned its clarion call for abolishing race-based policies in favour of policies that benefit those who are truly in need. The argument goes, if there is anyone poor and requiring aid, should the person not receive it regardless of his or her colour? There is no dispute here amongst the three coalition parties.

So this is precisely the banner taken up by the Pakatan states. The theme of welfare based on the needs of society has been the practice of Penang, Selangor, Kedah and Kelantan – and was championed in the recently concluded Sarawak state elections by the opposition parties (where they gained significant ground by increasing their representation from seven to 16 of the 71 state seats in total). This ambition is evident in its array of programmes implemented such as aid packages for the elderly, disabled and young children, and training programmes for young entrepreneurs, where ethnicity plays no determinant role.

The federal government has recently formed the Talent Corporation in response to this, but all the tax incentives in the world will not detract from the core problem of ethnic favouritism built into the national economic fabric. This affects not only employability, promotions or the worth of one’s income – but more importantly the morale of those who ultimately feel devalued as a result.

Ingredients for talent retention

The Pakatan coalition is attempting to address the very thing deterring Malaysian talent from returning home – by promoting social justice and equal treatment amongst all alike. However, is this really enough? For urban centres such as Penang and Selangor to propel themselves into the “new economy”, it goes without saying that talented, intelligent individuals will be required.

The same World Bank report noted that Malaysia, without the appropriate skills and talents, has been unable to upgrade to higher levels of specialisation. However, it did state that Penang has been more successful than Selangor and Johor Bahru in this area, citing examples of testing and design of integrated circuits as opposed to mere assembly. These are the sorts of innovative means the state governments must look toward – promoting industries of the future such as services, high-end manufacturing, and technology-related activities.

A good example lies in the layer of young entrepreneurs whose efforts should really be recognised and made mention of. I had the privilege of meeting the young country head of Groupon Malaysia, an online site that allows consumers to obtain discounted deals and services by “group”. Growing internationally, Groupon’s employee profile is the mobile, talented, intelligent young person with business acumen: the type of person the Malaysian economy needs. But to attract this group to stay home, the right conditions are required for their ideas to flourish.

We live in the reality that there is a global competition for talent, and individuals are extremely self-selective and mobile. The laundry list of reasons Malaysia is losing out includes factors such as less attractive salaries, lack of career prospects, social injustice, quality of life factors, bad access to high-quality education, and the presence of a diaspora network.

Based on the report, the variables affecting foreign direct investment (FDI) flow, which are similar reasons for the outflow of talent and are controllable by policy-makers are: i) quality of FDI-related regulations and institutions; ii) skills and innovation; iii) wages, and iv) infrastructure.

Under the first category of quality of regulations and institutions are: the rule of law, regulatory quality, government effectiveness, control of corruption and political stability.

State governments can play a role too

The fact that many of these fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government does not necessarily mean state governments should not try to exert influence where these factors are concerned. For example, states can promote skills and innovation on their own accord through private and government-linked and other (educational) institutions. States can also contribute by ensuring sufficient infrastructure. Penang is pushing for the entire state to go wireless; Selangor has plans in this regard as well. The private sector is already moving ahead, and numerous cafes and centres already have wireless networks.

In an earlier column I wrote that it is really all about a competition between cities instead of countries. A talented professional will think in realistic and not abstract terms. Which industries in Penang, Selangor and Johor require his or her services and pay him or her well for it, recognising his or her talent?

State and federal governments will have to work together closely in the future to ensure the factors laid out in the brain drain report are adequately addressed. Despite being at either end of the political divide, both parties agree on one thing: Malaysia will remain in its economic rut if the outflow of talent continues.

Finally, the report interestingly noted that almost half of the Malaysians abroad feel a strong sense of attachment to the country. Despite many of them also feeling settled in their new countries of abode, they still have patriotic feelings towards home. Coupled with the fact that 65% of those surveyed say they are unsure about whether to return to Malaysia or not, this means there is certainly room for persuasion. We are at a critical point: the manner in which Pakatan states handle the very problems these Malaysians left the country for determines their future destinations of choice.

Posted in Economics, Education, Selangor | Leave a comment

Putting the ‘Islam’ in Islamic Finance

Posted on June 15, 2011 by Tricia

A little bit off-topic from my usual writings on politics and administration, this article was based on my attending the 7th World Islamic Economic Forum in Kazakhstan. It’s good to be exposed to all sorts of issues. First published in theSun in June 2011.

Putting the ‘Islam’ in Islamic Finance

I recently attended the 7th World Islamic Economic Forum that was held in Astana, Kazakhstan. Being in Central Asia for the first time, it held much promise of historical and cultural intrigue, which did not fail to deliver. But I was curious to know what developments the conference itself had to offer, not having attended the meeting for several years now.

The World Islamic Economic Forum (WIEF) is an annual conference organised by the WIEF Foundation, of which the Prime Minister of Malaysia is a patron by manner of his position. Its objective of gathering like-minded economists, planners, businesspeople – both Muslim and non-Muslim – is premised, as I understand it, on the belief that business partnerships and projects can solve many problems of the Muslim world. My observations are therefore both from a non-Muslim perspective, as well as someone who has watched the forum grow and mature since its earlier formative days.

The forum has attempted to fashion itself as a Davos of the Muslim world, in a sense recreating the intellectual environment amongst the who’s who of the economic and business world similar to the World Economic Forum. This is done with the hope that the ideas, networking and interactions emerging from speakers and delegates would result in actual projects to help alleviate poverty and other socio-economic situations within some of the poorer Muslim countries.

And indeed there have been successful projects initiated by them as reported – internship programmes, honing of young entrepreneurs and numerous memoranda of understanding signed in conjunction with the event. The edge of the forum and its activities external to the conference seems to lie with its focus on women and youth development.

Islamic Finance as an Alternative

But it is the philosophical agenda of the conference that is more interesting to note. The very fact that there has been a need to form such an organisation within the Muslim world per se reflects upon the circumstances facing us – and I mean both Muslims and non-Muslims – today.

For example, one of the key trends that has followed the forum from its inception to what it is today is this: that the banking and financial system instated by the Western world, the primary one in use today, is riddled with problems.

This opinion, widely shared amongst participants, was in a sense vindicated by the recent global economic downturn, brought about precisely by what they consider as potential flaws: the multitude of funds, derivatives and other sophisticated instruments in existence today which have led to the financial and real economic/trading worlds becoming increasingly divorced from the other. And more importantly, the difficulty faced in then managing the system responsibly.

The Malaysian Prime Minister, one of the speakers at the event, waxed eloquent about the need for good governance, transparency and accountability as necessary for economic development. In his speech, he said it ought to come naturally for Muslims to behave in this manner, as the religion itself requires it of adherents in any case. He did not, however, speak of what really happens in the process of its implementation (especially in Malaysia).

The natural solution, as was argued at the conference repeatedly, was that Islamic finance is the way to go. After all, there are numerous conditions requiring every instrument to be approved and certified as syariah-compliant, an assurance to customers that such services rendered would be carried out responsibly and in accordance with Islamic principles.

Indeed, Islamic finance has grown 15 percent annually over the last decade and has surpassed over USD1 trillion in assets, and some project that by 2016, the annual industry growth will reach 28.6 percent (five times the rate of conventional investing), with USD5 trillion in assets. After all, out of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, only 14 percent have access to financial services despite representing 20 percent of the world’s population so there is certainly room to grow.

Challenges Ahead 

Although it is intriguing that there is great potential for Islamic finance to flourish, and advocates would desire it as a primary system, the challenge lies in ensuring it does not emulate what it seeks to replace.

The lively discussions on Islamic finance at the conference and within academic circles are detailed and thorough, and this piece in no way does justice to either theory or application of its complexities. However, suffice to note that everyday consumers would find little variance between conventional financial systems and Islamic finance, if the latter continues to develop in the same way as the former in its movements away from the real/retail economy.

The second challenge is for the Muslim world to develop solutions based on facts and figures, and not fall into the trap of responding emotionally to what they feel – both real and imagined – as hegemony of the Western world. It was indicated in one of the sessions that because economic problems emerge out of political problems, this then should be the forum’s focus as a precedent. Surely these are entirely justifiable sentiments, but reacting with fervour would score fewer points than with reason.

Finally, sure – good governance and all that jazz. But isn’t this something we have all heard of even within the corporate and finance industries way before Enron, Lehman Brothers and the like? Plus the fact that the conventional banking system is still very much at the forefront, with minimal changes made post-disaster. There is a greater question that has still been left unanswered. What of the human condition that seems to be naturally predisposed towards greed and power, both of which are sure-fire ways of causing systemic collapse? This is something Islamic finance scholars, practitioners and consumers would have to deal with, lest it treads a similar path as that which it criticises, especially given Malaysia’s goal of eventually becoming a global Islamic finance hub.

Posted in Economics, Religion | Leave a comment