Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Hudud and the Death Penalty
- Selangor dances the limbo for JAIS
- BN fails to kill with a borrowed knife
- Copycat judge in a copyright case!
- Why the hudud controversy will not die
- Deflate the bloated civil service
| Posted: 15 Oct 2011 01:04 AM PDT By Kua Kia Soong, Director of SUARAM It is truly admirable that Malaysians oppose the inoperable hudud laws for their dehumanizing forms of punishment but I am surprised that these same people do not likewise vehemently oppose the death penalty that has existed in our system for so long. On 20 July 1986, I presented a paper entitled 'The Quality and Equality of Mercy' a Bar Council Seminar (subsequently published in INSAF) soon after the hangings of Sim Kie Chon, followed by that of Barlow and Chambers. The Malaysian government's response to foreign criticism was to point to their double standards and Dr Mahathir's characteristic response was: "I don't accept all this accusation of being barbaric…We learnt all this from them (Westerners)." The Deputy Home Minister at the time was even quoted in Time Magazine on 5 August 1985 as saying: "The problem with the hanging process is that we've got to go through the ritual of appeal. That can take two years. I wish the Pardons Board would make faster decisions so that we can start hanging them…We plan to hang a person every week." The Attorney-General's Chamber even urged the mass media to "play up executions" as a deterrent. (Malay Mail, 18.8.83) No Civilisation has a monopoly of Barbarism Every feudal and pre-feudal social system – Chinese, Malay, Indian, Arab or European – has had penal systems involving the grossest cruelty imaginable. Punishment is an ancient response to wrongdoing. Throughout history, both the forms of punishment and the rationale for using it have changed markedly. Sociological studies have shown that penal systems everywhere are largely based on tradition, untested assumptions and inferences based on inadequate data. The English penal system is usually cited for obvious reasons. During 18thcentury England, death was decreed for several hundred specific offences, particularly for those against property, including shooting a rabbit, stealing a handkerchief, damaging a public building. From the outset therefore, the law incorporated class and political considerations. Comparative studies have shown that historically, the penalty as a judicial punishment has been seen to bear unequally and unjustly on the poor, on minorities and on oppressed groups in society. The Triumph of Humanism Progressively, the impetus for change was provided by the humanitarian and working class movements. The 18th century Enlightenment thinkers like Montesquieu and Voltaire provided the philosophical basis for reforms. There soon developed a more humanitarian outlook on crime and punishment and the emergence of humanist values. A more humanitarian approach led to a concern for rehabilitation of "deviants" based on the personal worth of each human being. Thus, in the modern state and under international human rights standards, the judicial system is intended to protect the individual against the state. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits all forms of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Consequently, in 1908 hanging was abolished in Britain for children less than 16 years of age. Today, most countries forbid its use on offenders under the age of 18. Capital punishment for murder offences has been abolished in Britain since 1965. Although the issue has been brought up periodically in the House of Commons, it has always been defeated. Today, most of Europe has abolished the death penalty. In the US, the death penalty was stopped by the Supreme Court in 1972 but was reintroduced in 1977. By the 1970s, capital punishment had been abolished as a statutory punishment in about one quarter of the world's nations. The judicial taking of life has been described as "the most pre-meditated and most diabolical of murders." It is basically a relic of the primitive drive for revenge and it merely passes the responsibility to the judge or jury who are supposed to be acting on our behalf. It is indicative of the primordial psyche that we are not content that criminals be safely put away in prison, we demand their death! Executions dehumanize society and undermine the common values upon which the full and free development of human society is based in all cultures. The value of human life is lessened once a state, in avowing the defence of its citizens, resorts to inhuman and degrading forms of punishment. No Evidence that Capital Punishment Deters Crime Perhaps the most popular misconception is that capital punishment acts as deterrence to crime for there is little evidence to show this. According to the British Home Office Research Unit study undertaken in the eighties, over the previous decade the increase in murders in the various categories had been insignificant. This was despite the fact there was a war in Northern Ireland. Another strong argument against capital punishment is that it entails irrevocable miscarriages of justice. In Britain, if the law on hanging had not changed in 1964, at least six men would have been hanged for offences they did not commit. ASTRO watchers would have seen the film "Hurricane" about the former US boxer who spent more than twenty years in jail for a murder he did not commit. If he had been hanged soon after his conviction, his death would have been on the nation's conscience forever! This was accounted for by the fact that no legal system is infallible. Moreover, as in the case of Hurricane and also in the British cases, miscarriages of justice usually take time to surface. Repeated appeals had failed to establish their innocence. The vulnerability of all criminal justice systems to discrimination and error must also be taken into account. There are also human factors involved, particularly, political expediency, discretion and public opinion especially in the granting of clemency. The decision to disallow the former CPM leader Chin Peng from visiting his ancestors' graves is a clear example of these factors in play. The world-wide comparative studies undertaken by Amnesty International have further shown that the wealthy, the politically well-connected and members of the dominant racial and religious groups are far less likely to be sentenced to death than the poor, supporters of the Opposition and members of minority groups. The Altantuya murder case demonstrates this tendency very well. The Quality and Equality of Mercy The Pardons Board is meant to be the last resort for the condemned when the judiciary has decided their fate. Under Article 42(5) of the Federal Constitution, it comprises the Attorney-General, the Prime Minister or Chief Minister, and three other members appointed by the Ruler or the Yang Di-Pertua Negeri. It tenders advice to the Yang Di-Pertuan Agung who acts on the advice to commute or not to commute the death sentence. Thus, the Pardons Board is supposed to be capable of showing that human capacity for mercy or clemency. In the past, a former minister of culture, Mokhtar Hashim was pardoned after he had been convicted for murder. In the case of Sim Kie Chon, Barlows and Chambers during the eighties, the Pardons Board exercised its prerogative to refuse clemency on the grounds that it was "not justiciable". The undue haste to execute them was absolutely unnecessary especially when there were complaints that all legal avenues to save their lives had not been fully exhausted. The incongruity of the fate of Mokhtar Hashim and that of Sim Kie Chon led to demands by the public for the criteria by which the Attorney-General recommends commutation of the death sentence or otherwise. The desirability of the AG's presence in the Pardons Board was also questioned since it was the AG who had instituted the prosecution and sought the death sentence in the first place. It would be fairer and preferable for the Pardons Board to be made up of members who are seen to be independent and impartial, made up of the widest possible cross-section of society and representative of all classes and ethnic communities. A sizeable majority should be needed if the death sentence is to be upheld. The case against the death penalty was best summed up by Lord Morris of Borth-Gest, a British High Court judge in the sixties: "Can we be sure that the utter and irrevocable finality of the death sentence can always be matched by positive certainty of guilt? In no country, with the fairest system of law, with the most humane and conscientious judiciary do I feel that we can be satisfied of that." |
| Selangor dances the limbo for JAIS Posted: 13 Oct 2011 04:29 PM PDT
The Sultan's decree does not resolve important issues raised by the farcical raid on DUMC and has left many with bottled up feelings of resentment and discontent Officials of DUMC have, from the outset, vehemently denied the allegations that Muslims had been proselytised at what they claim was a multiethnic gathering to raise funds for HIV/AIDS. They have however, criticised the actions of JAIS enforcement officials for their role and conduct in the unauthorised raid. Mariam Mokhtar, Free Malaysia Today The principal parties involved in the Selangor Islamic Affairs Department (JAIS) raid on a Methodist church function last August have officially endorsed the sultan's solution, and the matter is deemed closed. The Sultan of Selangor's brief statement said that "….there had been attempts to subvert the faith and belief of Muslims" during the dinner at the Damansara Utama Methodist Church (DUMC) organised by the NGO Harapan Komuniti during Ramadan. Despite this, many issues remain unresolved and the rakyat is more perplexed than ever because his statement raises more questions than answers. How much involvement has Umno in the affairs of an opposition led state, do state religious authorities think that they are above the law and had abuses of power by JAIS been swept under the carpet? The statement did not allude to any evidence uncovered in these "attempts" at proselytisation, neither did it make reference to the Christians. However, it mentioned that no further legal action could be taken because of insufficient evidence and that JAIS had acted correctly in conducting the search. Sultan Sharafuddin said: "Therefore, after carefully deliberating the report by JAIS and after obtaining advice from religious authorities and legal experts, we are in agreement that there would be no prosecution against any party. "We are satisfied that the actions of JAIS were correct and did not breach any law enforceable in Selangor. We command that (Islamic officials) provide counseling to Muslims who were involved in the said dinner, to restore their belief and faith in the religion of Islam." Officials of DUMC have, from the outset, vehemently denied the allegations that Muslims had been proselytised at what they claim was a multiethnic gathering to raise funds for HIV/AIDS. They have however, criticised the actions of JAIS enforcement officials for their role and conduct in the unauthorised raid. Perhaps, the most disquieting statement was when the sultan said that he was "gravely concerned and extremely offended by the attempts of certain parties to weaken the faith and belief of Muslims." Malaysians have remarked that they are just as offended because nothing has been done to check high-handed officialdom and the mistrust which the officials have in the rakyat. Firstly, they are offended that Malays are perceived to be of weak faith and an even weaker constitution, that their presence in a largely Christian flock, when hymns are sung or prayers said, could make them denounce their faith. Secondly, the notion that any multiethnic event, be it a funeral, Christmas party, celebration of a festival or something as innocuous as a dinner, is seen as an attempt to convert the Muslim brethren. As defender of the faith, the sultan had also directed his subjects to stop questioning the actions of JAIS and that activities which spread other religions to Muslims should cease. He said: "The religion of Islam as practised in Selangor is one of tolerance. Muslims are always encouraged to respect the believers of other religions. However, persons or parties cannot take the opportunity to spread other religions to Muslims." What if a similar raid was on a mosque? But disgruntled non-Muslims have remarked: "It is all right for you Muslims. But who speaks for us, when members of our community undergo forced conversions? "Families are torn apart, children are separated from their mothers, bodies are snatched from graves, marriages cannot be registered. Where is the freedom to practise our religion as provided in the constitution?" A Malay resident of Petaling Jaya living beside a Church said: "No one questions JAIS for wanting to do its job. The issue is how JAIS conducted itself when it carried out the raid. "Did JAIS have any respect of the sanctity of a place of worship? Did it even follow procedures when conducting the raid? Are there any standard procedures in the first instance? "If a similar raid were to be conducted on a mosque, wouldn't there be a Muslim backlash? Without search warrants or strict adherence to guidelines to raid, do you think anyone will have any respect for authority if they simply bulldoze their way in? "Where is the respect for another person's religion?" Where is our tolerance?"
|
| BN fails to kill with a borrowed knife Posted: 13 Oct 2011 03:44 PM PDT
The BN government has lost a golden opportunity to finish off Pakatan in the battle of the budgets. The fact that Pakatan had announced its alternative budget earlier should have provided BN with a weapon, that is, RM1,100 to kill off Pakatan and yet BN strategists have failed to capitalise on this simple ruse which, in ancient Chinese military strategy, is called "Killing with a Borrowed Knife" or "Stabbing the Enemy with his Own Knife". Selena Tay, Free Malaysia Today Barisan Nasional's (BN) strategists for the 2012 Budget presented on Oct 7 really got it wrong this time. While there were gifts and goodies galore for civil servants, and pensioners as well, the private sector's low wage-earners and its retirees were neglected. Pertaining to the private sector's low-income group, the minimum wage figure was the bone of contention. The sector's low-wage earners were anxiously waiting for this figure to be announced by Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak as Pakatan Rakyat was the first to fix the floor wage at RM1,100 in the Pakatan budget unveiled on Oct 4. If Najib had set the figure as RM1,200, Pakatan would have been blown out of orbit because there would have been a great swing of support from Pakatan to BN. Instead, BN budget strategists, for whatever reasons best known to themselves, chose to ignore the private sector low-wage earners. The minimum wage figure is a much-needed benchmark upon which wages will be decided but BN has chosen to ignore this fact at its own peril. Therefore, BN has certainly lost a golden opportunity to gain support from the private sector employees, especially those who work in blue-collar jobs in factories or those lower-ranked office staff such as general or administration clerks. See, all it takes is just RM100 to blow Pakatan away! The fact that Pakatan had announced its alternative budget earlier should have provided BN with a weapon, that is, RM1,100 to kill off Pakatan and yet BN strategists have failed to capitalise on this simple ruse which, in ancient Chinese military strategy, is called "Killing with a Borrowed Knife" or "Stabbing the Enemy with his Own Knife". If BN chooses to announce the minimum wage figure now, the impact will be lost and the public will know that BN is insincere or worst still, it is an election gimmick to garner votes from the low- income group. This terrrible blunder represents a great failure by the BN federal government to improve the earnings of Malaysian citizens. And it just goes to show that it is the government which is depressing the wage market and this means that all this talk by the government about improving workers' rights is merely hot air. Concerning the private sector retirees, theirs is a case of double tragedy. They, too, should have been entitled to the bonus payout of RM1,000 (RM500 paid out in August this year before Hari Raya Aidilfitri and RM500 to be paid this coming December). This is because in their heyday, they too have worked hard, paid their taxes and contributed to the development and progress of the nation. It is a travesty of justice that they have been so poorly neglected time and time again by the BN government. As for those old-timers, aged 70 and above, their Employees Provident Fund (EPF) savings would have most probably run out as the salary was small in those days. Thus, in this present day and age, their savings would have shrunk tremendously due to inflation and they would have no choice but to rely on their children to provide for them. That is all well and fine if their children are earning well but what if their children fail to make it in life? And what about those who are single? 1Malaysia slogan empty rhetoric The government's generosity towards the civil servants and pensioners has irked the low-wage earners who are clamouring for fair treatment to be meted out to them, too. It is extremely amazing that the government deems it fit to ignore the pleas for minimum wage from the low-income group in the private sector. This clearly shows that without a doubt the 1Malaysia slogan of "People First, Performance Now" is empty rhetoric to dupe the public. Ditto for the much-hyped up slogan of "BN is a caring government". Caring indeed but perhaps caring only for its own stranglehold of power in Putrajaya?
|
| Copycat judge in a copyright case! Posted: 13 Oct 2011 03:34 PM PDT
While serving as a High Court judge in Johor in early 2000 Abdul Malik had allegedly committed the offence of plagiarising a judgment by then Singapore High Court judge GP Selvam and the irony of the matter was that Malik was hearing a case regarding copyright infringement. By Martin Jalleh When the respected retired judge N H Chan called certain judges in the appellate courts "imposters", "intellectual and legal frauds", "incompetent", "inane", "ignoramuses", "inconsistent" and even an "idiotic" bunch, little did he realise that he was being very mild. Now it has come to the public's notice that crouching amongst the growing company of judicial clowns and court jesters in the Palace of Justice is a copycat judge who allegedly plagiarised chunks of a judgment of another judge – in a copyright infringement case! Former Law Minister Rais Yatim has confirmed that the government had known about the plagiarising judge, but Rais tries to take the rakyat for a ride by blaming it all on the then Chief Justice (CJ), and that it was left to the latter to investigate and to take appropriate action. Copycat out of the bag Recently, veteran lawyer Karpal Singh, with the support of close to 60 Pakatan Rakyat MPs, submitted a motion to the office of the Parliament speaker against Justice Abdul Malik Ishak, to have him placed before a tribunal and be removed. While serving as a High Court judge in Johor in early 2000 Abdul Malik had allegedly committed the offence of plagiarising a judgment by then Singapore High Court judge GP Selvam and the irony of the matter was that Malik was hearing a case regarding copyright infringement. Malaysiakini highlighted two news reports in Singapore's Straits Times -- 8 March and 13 April, 2000 which were referred to by Karpal Singh. The newspaper quoted then CJ Eusoff Chin as having written to his Singapore counterpart, Justice Yong Pung How, asking for more information on the allegation of plagiarism. A month later, Eusoff told journalists that the matter was resolved and that it had arisen out of a "misunderstanding". He however did not elaborate. (By the way, this is the same CJ, whom a former CJ Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah had described as one who "kept lying to him" when the latter was a Federal Court judge and Eusoff was his boss! (Star, 30 Jan. 2008). The Straits Times also reported that Rais Yatim had promised an investigation. Rais was ridiculous enough as to add that it was not easy to establish plagiarism because it was normal for judges to quote one another extensively and that: "Quoting another judge is not plagiarism." The Straits Times report of 8 March, 2000 reduced Rais' "rescue bid" of the judge to pure rubbish when it quoted the former Singapore judge (Selvam) accusing the Malaysian judge of having obtained a copy of his (Selvam's) judgment through a lawyer and "having copied chunks from me without acknowledging". (Rais sat on the case for four long years and did nothing about it!) Selvam was also quoted to have said the Malaysian judge backdated his judgment so that people "will think I copied from him!" The naked truth appears each time Rais speaks through his rear end. After the Singapore judiciary got the cat out of the bag, the copycat was transferred out of Johor Baru and kept in cold-storage for a while. Seven years later the plagiariser would be promoted to the Court of Appeal (16 July, 2007)! This can only happen in Bolehland! Karpal Singh has described (on several online news portals) Malik's alleged plagiarising as a "judicial scandal", "misconduct of a very serious nature", "a source of embarrassment for our judiciary" and one that warrants "stern disciplinary action" by a Royal Tribunal. Will Justice Abdul Malik Ishak have enough honour left to resign on his own accord? Is there any remaining sense of decency and self-respect in him to acknowledge and accept the fact that his position as a judge has become clearly untenable. Will the Chief Justice save the judiciary and the country from further embarrassment or has the judiciary entirely lost its sense of shame and the CJ prefers to continue in his elegant silence? Meanwhile, taking the easy way out like Rais, Minister in the PM's Department Nazri Abdul Aziz said the government could not take action against Abdul Malik as it was a matter for the current judiciary to settle. Asked why the judiciary had not censured Abdul Malik until now, he said: "I don't know, you have to ask them." Strange, coming from a man who had once proudly and loudly declared himself as the "Minister for the Chief Justice"! Malik's other "achievements" On 10 Oct. 2009, the Court of Appeal, with Malik as the presiding judge, struck out Anwar Ibrahim's RM100 million defamation suit against Dr Mahathir on the technicality that the memorandum of appeal was not in Bahasa Malaysia. Malik stressed the supremacy of the national language as he delivered his 31-page written judgment in English! On 5 Oct. 2011, the Federal Court allowed Anwar Ibrahim's application to expunge portions of a written judgment made by Malik on 6 July in the Court of Appeal related to the Sodomy II trial, that were deemed disparaging of the politician and his lawyers. Karpal Singh (Anwar's lawyer) complained to the judges that Malik had "without jurisdiction and for an apparent purpose invoked a non-existent jurisdiction to maliciously and scurrilously (go into the merits and) embark on a relentless attack on Anwar and the lawyers (in the written judgment)". "This amounts to judicial assassination of the worst kind ... (and) to make matters worse, the appellant and the lawyers were not given an opportunity to defend ourselves... as the appellate court had allowed the preliminary objection. "The remarks were uncalled for and put the Judiciary in bad light. If the case was allowed to be heard on its merits, we (would have been) prepared to defend ourselves. However, we were not allowed to do so as the court allowed the preliminary objection." Karpal also questioned as to how Malik produced the written 40-page judgment on the day the appeal was heard at the Court of Appeal. Various law journals had reported that the judgment was produced on 6 July, but lawyers for Anwar only received it on 15 Aug. Malik had also scurrilously written: "This case will fall in history. It will be chronicled as the only known case in our country or for that matter within the Commonwealth enclave where the appellant as an accused person persistently and consistently filed one application after another in an attempt to recuse the learned trial judge from hearing and continuing to hear the sodomy trial which is ongoing." Very ironically, it is the case of Abdul Malik which will fall in history and be chronicled as the only known case in our country or for that matter within the Commonwealth enclave where the one found guilty of plagiarising in a copyright infringement case was the judge himself!
|
| Why the hudud controversy will not die Posted: 13 Oct 2011 03:13 PM PDT
The politicians, mullahs and kings do not know all the answers or what's best for society. The Muslims must be able to evaluate and decide on hudud free from social pressures and political or religious brainwashing. This includes the notorious 'bad Muslim' stigma that could prevent them from saying 'no' to hudud when 'no' is what they truly desire. Pak Sako, Free Malaysia Today PAS and DAP's decision to 'agree to disagree' on hudud must be taken for what it really is: a politically-motivated temporary ceasefire. It does not resolve the hudud controversy. The controversy can never be resolved as long as the fundamental questions of the hudud debate continue to be avoided. The questions are:
A national dialogue on implementing hudud must exhaustively probe these questions before anything else. An open and critical exploration of these questions will help the public learn and decide about whether hudud is necessary, worthwhile, appropriate or out-of-date. It will enable policymakers to discover whether the informed public desires hudud or not. Without full public discussion and public consent, it is immoral for policymakers to presuppose the value of hudud and speak about its implementation. It is also wrong to assume that a simple parliamentary majority (which is all that is needed) is an automatic mandate to incrementally amend the federal constitution to accommodate hudud. The public on their part should not leave it the politicians, the religious scholars or the royalty to decide matters for them. The politicians, mullahs and kings do not know all the answers or what's best for society; they have a personal or biased interest in the matter; and it is undemocratic to allow the preferences of these vested interest groups to influence a decision that should be in the hands of the people. Special obligation to explain If after careful deliberation the people choose to reject hudud, this decision must be respectfully accepted. The Islamic theologians are useful insofar as they can provide the evaluating public with technical input, such as the scope, workings and other details of hudud. Likewise with the political scientists and other relevant experts. All members of the public including interest groups and civil society organisations should thrash out the questions about the purposes and worth of hudud. The Muslims must be able to evaluate and decide on hudud free from social pressures and political or religious brainwashing. This includes the notorious 'bad Muslim' stigma that could prevent them from saying 'no' to hudud when 'no' is what they truly desire. As for the non-Muslims, they are not free to wash their hands of the issue; they are responsible parties to any law that the politicians they had elected might enact and administer upon their fellow citizens. PAS and all other proponents of hudud have a special obligation to explain the explicit and implicit aims they believe hudud is to serve and the rationales for these. They must engage in discussions about the value of hudud and the problems and concerns associated with it. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the proposers of the law.
|
| Deflate the bloated civil service Posted: 11 Oct 2011 03:25 PM PDT
It is time the government addresses the issue of the overbloated civil service. If you take pensions into account, emoluments and pensions as a percentage of the government's operating expenditure, the increase is from 29.8% in 2006 to 41.6% in 2010. Despite the fact that the annual budget is always increasing, the emoluments and pensions percentage proportion of the Budget is also ballooning! Selena Tay, Free Malaysia Today The 2012 Budget has failed to address the serious issues of soaring prices, rising inflation, minimum wage, corruption, cronyism, wastages and leakages in government departments but make no bones about it. Malaysia's civil service has got to go on record as being the most overbloated in the world. As at 2010, it numbers about 1.2 million employees on the government payroll out of a population of 28 million. What gives? The civil service has been expanding rapidly since the 1990s and its growth has been accelerated especially fast since 2007. In 1990, the government had 773,997 employees, by the year 2000 there were 894,788 staff members and by 2010 about 1.2 million. One of the key objectives of privatisation under the then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad was to increase the efficiency of the delivery system and to reduce the civil service staff members to just above 500,000. Therefore, it could be said that the privatisation exercises were a complete and dismal failure in creating a lean and efficient civil service as the number now is more than twice its targetted size of 500,000. The overbloated civil service has for the most part to do with the government's policy of making our civil service the job saviour for the unemployable graduates, at least 70% of whom were Bumiputeras. This will result in a poor quality workforce but worse than that it also depletes the government's treasury. The Budget will be negatively impacted for the present and future years if the government does not restructure the civil service. Their pay rise itself will be a waste of public funds if there is a lack of efficiency and productivity. 'Iron rice bowl' This simply means that their paychecks are safely guaranteed by the government for the rest of their lives. This spurs them on to vote for Barisan Nasional come what may. Thus, their loyalty is secured as their morality and conscience go down the drain. In 2005, the government's emoluments expenses to maintain the civil service is RM25.6 billion and in 2008 it was RM41 billion (an increase of 60.2%). The civil service, therefore, is a heavy burden on emoluments as a percentage of Malaysia's financial budget. From taking up 23.3% of the nation's operating budget in 2006, it has been nothing but a yearly increase as it grew to 25.5% in 2007, 28.1% in 2008, 24.6% in 2009 and 33.1% in 2010 in spite of the yearly massive increase in operating expenditure from 101.2 billion in 2006 to RM154.2 billion three years later in 2009. If you take pensions into account, emoluments and pensions as a percentage of the government's operating expenditure, the increase is from 29.8% in 2006 to 41.6% in 2010. Despite the fact that the annual budget is always increasing, the emoluments and pensions percentage proportion of the Budget is also ballooning! The Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD) shows Malaysia having the highest ratio of civil servants to the population in the Asia-Pacific region at 4.68% with Indonesia having 1.79%, Philippines 1.81%, South Korea 1.85% and Thailand 2.06%. Therefore the overbloated civil service is a major contributory factor to the financial burden of the government. In 2007, the government created 2,000 jobs in the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs to give jobs to unemployed graduates as "price monitors". Their job was to jot down the prices of goods at wet markets, supermarkets and hypermarts. What is the purpose of this job is anyone's guess.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan