Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Perceptions, Illusions & Reality
- Election And Other Stories From Open Houses
- Creating a Twister From A Teacup Storm?
- Choosing Sides
- Hari Malaysia 2012 - Dan Lain-Lain
- Who's the ultimate ruler of Malaysia?
- Sultans’ Daulat Is A Myth – Part Two
- The Special Position of the Malays (Part One)
- Touché?
- Janji dicapati?
- Menetapkan Gaji Minimum Adalah Idea Yang Buruk Bagi Rakyat
| Perceptions, Illusions & Reality Posted: 02 Sep 2012 05:22 PM PDT Please observe the following pictures:
You would agree that in the top picture, the upper horizontal line is longer than the lower; in the middle picture, the left vertical line is longer than the right; and in the bottom picture, the top horizontal line is longer that the lower. But, let me assure you that if you measure the lines, they are exactly the same length. The above three pictures are commonly referred to as the Muller-Lyer illusion and is one of the most famous of illusions. It was created by German Now that you know for a fact that the lines are exactly the same length, yet whenever you look at the three pictures, you or rather your mind refuses to acknowledge the reality that the lines are of the same length. Try as hard as you can, your eyes refuse to acknowledge the reality. What has this got to do with political propaganda? Let me explain. Whenever we make a judgment, conclusion and or a decision, we are often affected by what we see and intuitively we make a hasty decision because we believe that our eyes don't lie. This is even so, when as stated above, the lines are of the exact same length, our eyes somehow refuse to accept the reality and this "refusal" persists to the extent that we refuse and or fail to rectify this apparent error. Look at the three pictures again and did your experience not confirm what I have stated? You can see how stubborn we can be in not acknowledging the reality. Once we have made a major decision solely on the basis of an observation (as in the case above) we find it very difficult to change our mind or our decisions, even though we know that it is wrong. Call it "ego", "stubbornness" or whatever, but it is the sad reality that we often cling on to this illusion. Now let me apply the Muller-Lyer illusion to politics, specifically propaganda in politics. Let us now analyse the idiotic stance of one of our politicians from the Opposition coalition, Mr. Karpal Singh and his judgment, decision and or conclusion that he must oppose Hudud come hell or high water. He perceives himself as the champion of the secular society and has said that Hudud can only be implemented over his dead body. Such bravado! But, what is the reality? Obviously, if two-thirds of the members of parliament were to legislate that Hudud be implemented, there is nothing Karpal Singh can do about it, more so when he is dead and buried. Some would even say – good riddance! Again, who is Karpal Singh to insist that members of PAS who are Muslims have no right to promote and or even demand that Hudud be implemented as part of their political agenda? It is the religious belief of the PAS members that as Muslims, they must implement Hudud, no matter how galling it may be for Karpal Singh. Likewise, who are we to judge Karpal Singh as a deviant and a traitor to his religion for not wearing a turban as is required of all those who profess Sikhism as their faith?
| ||||||||||
| Election And Other Stories From Open Houses Posted: 02 Sep 2012 03:46 PM PDT 2. Another asked me to predict the likely outcome of the coming general election. I said, bring me a spring chicken, a young cockerel, two kati of sugar and two kati of salt. Another person listening in on the conversation added, some kemenyan (incense). These are articles that a Malay bomoh – medicine man – would usually require as pengeras. They are both gifts and ingredients that would supposedly make the portion or the mantra more potent. 3. On a serious note, I think if the Barisan Nasional retains power, it is not so much because it is strong or popular, but because the oppositions are in disarray – like the former Prime Minister, Tun Dr Matahir Mohamad, was recently reported as saying "better the devil you know than one that you don't." 4. At the state level, the DAP looks safe in Penang. The PKR is under threat in Selangor. Its repeated show of disrespect for the Sultan and open squabbles between the Menteri Besar, Abdul Khalid Ibrahim and deputy president, Azmin Ali, could weaken Malay support and put off the non-Malays. Pas is safe in Kelantan, but its control of Kedah could be under threat due to internal problems and the continued poor health of the Menteri Besar, Azizan Abdul Razak. Perak is not safe for the BN while Negeri Sembilan and Johor could came under attack by the DAP and Pas. Sarawak and Sabah may no longer be the BN's safe havens. The Economy And Discrimination 5. Another open house visitor, a former CEO of a now defunct Malay conglomerate, said the job market is shrinking, the government and the GLC are no longer giving preference to the Bumiputeras and the discrimination against Bumiputeras is spreading in the non-Bumiputera-controlled private sector. 6. He pointed out that while tokenism by Chinese businesses is well known, now he observes the Indians are doing likewise. He said Malaysian Indian restaurants, including the Indian Muslim ones, are paying more to expatriate Indian workers and other foreigners (salaries, government levies, free food and accommodation) and discriminate against local workers on the pretext that they are choosy and lazy. 7. I came across such a situation in my dealing with a locally incorporated US-owned bank. Since I make a point of not defaulting on my credit card payment, I receive regular telephone calls asking if I want loans on my cards. I observe that Chinese officers (who regularly addressed me as "Encik Kalio or Kadio"), would offer the highest amount, the Indian officers came second and, on very rare occasions, a Malay officer would also chip in and she offered the lowest sum. 8. I can only conclude that the Chinese executives enjoy a higher level of authority to give out loans compared to their Indian and Malay compatriots. And as for the Chinese officers calling me "Encik Kalio or Kadio", I can only conclude that they were Chinese educated. Fear Of Perkasa 9. Then there are my non-Malay doctors and non-Malay ex-military officers who are curious and, at the same time, worried about the power and influence of Perkasa. They think Perkasa is sabotaging the Prime Minister, Mohd Najib Abdul Razak's 1Malaysia agenda. 10. I think they hold such a view because they were so used to seeing the Malays rallying almost exclusively behind Umno and Pas. The two Malay-based political parties in turn speak on their behalf. 11. I asked them to consider what gave birth to Perkasa and the Malay Consultative Council (MPM), and why so many Malays, including professionals and intellectuals, are now rallying behind these NGOs and the maverick politician, Ibrahim Ali? Why do they choose to voice their concerns and demands via Ibrahim and not Mohd Najib, Abdul Hadi Awang (Pas President) or Anwar Ibrahim (the Supreme Leader of PKR)?
| ||||||||||
| Creating a Twister From A Teacup Storm? Posted: 02 Sep 2012 09:40 AM PDT The youths who showed the controversial flag on Aug 30, 2012 have come out to explain their side of the story. Read more at: http://yah-meh.blogspot.com/2012/09/creating-twister-from-teacup-storm.html | ||||||||||
| Posted: 02 Sep 2012 09:31 AM PDT People of Malaysia will indeed have to choose. Stand on the side of the oppressors or the oppressed. Support the deceiver or the deceived. Support the corrupt and endorse the looting and the pillage of this country. all done in the name of Agama, Bangsa Dan Negara. Everything is justifiable because the perpetrators are Malays and forgetting the victims are in the majority also Malays. pardon the government in shortchanging the Felda settlers giving them a measly 2.5% of the FGV shares while the bulk of the shares are hijacked by people who have no connection at all with Felda. Pardon UMNO because even though it allocates 2.5% to settlers and 3% to Felda employees, all is done in the name of Malays. Ignore the fact that LCCT is going to cost close to RM 6billion instead of RM500 million if facilities for low cost airline are built northwards of the current KLIA instead of agreeing that the facilities be built on soft ground as proposed by the MAB? Are people in the MAB making hay while the sun shines? We keep quiet because it's done by the current government which fights for Agama, Bangsa Dan Negara. Then, does that mean, the agama of UMNO endorses corruption, pillage and looting? Does that also mean that bangsa permits UMNO to do all the transgressions? And does that mean, agama, bangsa of the Malays excuse the murder of a Mongolian because she is after all just a prostitute? And finally because it is done in the name and on behalf of negara which UMNO claims absolute ownership on, all of the above are excusable? The recent spate of advertisements where various people say I chose Malaysia and I choose to vote are nothing more than self-serving vilest of propaganda. They are also self-congratulating. They seem to suggest that those who support the government choose to show the support through the voting process and those who do not, appear to be shown as people who want to change government through undemocratic means. The purveyors of these dreadful advertisements have only shown political immaturity because such hoopla does not require subtle and sophisticated thinking. They require only emotion and self-praise, while the opposite requires analysis and thought, subordinating the emotions to the rational faculty. And we know the emotional faculties are more developed than the rational. When we look at the photos of people hailed as champions of I chose Malaysia campaign in the MSM papers, we know the nature of the faculties which they represent. Liberalize the media and see what happens. Allow the free exchange of ideas and free flow of ideas so that people can judge for themselves. So choose. Stand on the side of the bully or on the side of the marginalized and trampled on? The reality and truth is we can elect in a better government. We only ask the structures of government- the civil service, the judiciary, the law enforcers, other institutions to stop toadying up to UMNO. The structures of government serve the people. They remain intact if and when a new government takes over and the business of running a government does not end with the jettisoning of UMNO. Read more at: http://sakmongkol.blogspot.com/2012/09/choosing-sides.html | ||||||||||
| Hari Malaysia 2012 - Dan Lain-Lain Posted: 02 Sep 2012 09:03 AM PDT RECENTLY at a group conversation, a genuinely-concerned ethnic Chinese asked a friend of mixed parentage: "How does it feel to not have a real culture?" Excuse me? For so long – too long – we've gone about bandying our respective ethnicity as if, without it, we're rudderless. Yet we've all heard it before, haven't we, in various emphasis; guilty of it even. Our politics is shaped by it, local surveys are modelled along it, the media blares it. Worse, we judge. In our minds, many of us imagine ourselves the quintessential Ethnic Thoroughbred. There's us, and there's them, the Others. That's curious, because genetically, between one human being and the next, we're 99.5 percent alike. And in this 0.5 percent difference – which translates into height, length of nose, colour of skin, shape of eyes, texture of hair – this whole Other business emerges. We're obsessed with the Other. To be fair, we're not unique. It was a reason for imperialism and that slant was expressed candidly. British cartographers for example centered Britain on their maps, and drew it proportionally larger than it should be... Other, then, describes the process of justifying the domination of individuals or groups in the periphery to facilitate subordination. The creation of the other is done by highlighting their weakness, thus extenuating the moral responsibility of the stronger self to educate, convert, or civilize depending on the identity of the other. - Wikipedia Today, the world's religions promote the same virtues, and yet so much of religious discourse and practice is focused on differences with the Others. Women's rights groups exist to correct centuries of being the Other in a male-dominated world. Slaves were a convenient Other. The LGBTs are a convenient Other. Perhaps it is time to pause and dig for solutions which conjoin rather than divide. Let us contemplate the very phrase that so mocked and divided the marginal communities: Dan Lain-Lain. Dan Lain-Lain includes. Dan Lain-Lain is the creative hybrid which gives life its zest. Dan Lain-Lain FTW! Every community in this country has in some way or other adopted and adapted to the geography, and culture of its neighbours. Forget the thoroughbred; we're all mongrels. Whether by language or food or thought, we are mongrel. On September 16, this Hari Malaysia, join us for a celebration of Dan Lain-Lain. | ||||||||||
| Who's the ultimate ruler of Malaysia? Posted: 01 Sep 2012 07:51 PM PDT Then (and even now) I have nothing against monarchy PROVIDED those royals remain as constitutional heads of state, whether of Malaysia the nation or of the respective nine states with Sultans (and a Raja), based on my understanding of the concept of constitutional monarchy in a democracy.
Sometime in August 2007 I read with some alarm a letter to Malaysiakini titled No more backbenchers' role for Rulers written by a person with the pseudonym of Truly Malaysian which stated, in my humble opinion, dangerously for our democratic system: It is definitely a light at the end of the tunnel that the Malay rulers have finally decided to have their say in the recent fiascos that has gone beyond the normal tolerance level of the public. The rulers have finally realised that we as a nation are heading towards obscurity. They are now really living to the true manifestation of being the rulers. [...]
It is, of course, better late than never, and aren't we all are glad that the Malay rulers have finally decided to take a stand and voice their own dissent on various affairs that do not serve the public's and nation's interests at large. [...] Although they have played the backbencher's role in the past, they are now coming forward and we should hand them our support for them to play a more pertinent role in moulding the future of the nation rather than moulding the future for a few. For a start, the writer didn't even know what was(is) a backbencher, and to refer to the rulers playing the backbenchers' role showed his bizarre and Truly pathetic ignorance.
But no doubt he/she would have changed his/her opinion by now with the sad advantage of hindsight of royal interference in the Perak political debacle. Anyway, I had then with the gravest concerns written to MKINI the following: I refer to Malaysiakini letter No more backbenchers' role for Rulers which has me rather worried. The author might not have realized the constitutional implications of his words such as "The rulers ... are now really living to the true manifestation of being the rulers ..." and "... Although they have played the backbencher's role in the past, they are now coming forward and we should hand them our support for them to play a more pertinent role in moulding the future of the nation ..." While I understand the author's euphoria over the Council of Rulers' rejection of the PM's candidate for a senior judicial position, I note that the author's infatuation with the royal dissent came on top of several other high praises for the Perak Prince and Sultan of Selangor when the two, especially the former, raised their voices on issues closed to the dissatisfied public's hearts.
The author has not been alone for Dr Chen Man Hin, a former DAP strongman, had even proposed the Perak Prince as an advisor to the Prime Minister (PM). It would seem that the rulers are making a comeback after years of public scorn at their irrelevance, perhaps caused mainly by one particular individual, who had believed he could still rule as per medieval times, as an absolute monarchy. I most certainly appreciate the Perak Prince's reminder of our constitutional pillars, though in reality he didn't say anything much that the Opposition hadn't pointed out before. But yes, his official stature gave his words more force (and attract more attention) than a Lim Kit Siang or a Nik Aziz could manage. But we need to remember Malaysia is a democracy built around a constitutional monarchy, meaning the voice of the people, and not those of the rulers, prevails.
Sure, our royalty as in the model of the Perak Prince, the Council of Rulers questioning the PM in his choice of a candidate for the bench, and the pronouncement of the Sultan of Selangor to keep politics out of our Merdeka celebrations have been most welcome. They have both a constitutional role and an exemplary role model to play. But we must never talk as if, or even suggest that they had been 'backbenchers' moving forward (presumably) to the 'front bench'. That's dangerous talk, to suggest the rulers may play a direct political role (or even as an political advisor to the PM) while serving as respective Heads of States or as the Yang Di Pertuan Agong, or still retaining their royal prerogatives.
It's certainly a sign of our frustration with the current government that some of us believe the royalty could and would be our saviour. We, the politically frustrated public members, are in reality grasping at straws in much the same way as many of us had embraced a former UMNO reject as a political saviour against a previous regime even when there was no evidence of his reformist qualities during his various ministerial roles.
No matter how good any individual royalty is, no matter how bad any politician is, let us not unwittingly change our system of constitutional monarchy to one of absolute monarchy, or of one where royalty has a greater degree of direct political participation. That will be a regrettable step backwards. That was in mid-2007. Exactly a week following the March 2008 general election I wrote another post Lim Kit Siang opened Royal Pandora Box? where I criticized Uncle Lim as follows (extracts):
So Malaysiakini tells us that the political Deal's stitched, & it's all systems go for Perak.
Alas, the parties have finally acquiesced to royal demands, with many of them forgetting that in a political democracy it's the political party which commands the majority in the State Assembly (outright or through a coalition, formal or otherwise) who picks the CM or MB (or at the federal level, the PM) to be approved by the constitutional ruler.
I had posted this reminder of the people's right and power two days ago in Perak Papadum Ping Pong Primadonnas, where I stated:
… kaytee believes the coalition has done something quite stupid. In submitting 3 names to the Sultan to choose it has unwittingly involved royalty in State politics in an unprecedented way. It's not for the Sultan to choose from a list of three. Certainly the Sultan can disagree with a name but he should only be given one name (at a time). For example, the Sultan could say no to DAP Ngeh and say, gimme another name! But it's not for HRH to be given 3 names and decide on one he prefers. The choice of an MB is a political one and to be left to the political parties as elected by the rakyat; the acceptance of the choice is the prerogative of HRH, but HRH cannot and should not be making a political decision by choosing one name from a list of three. Yes, the ruler cannot reject the candidate forwarded for his approval, save where there is perceivable concerns the candidate has a dodgy record or perhaps is infirmed, etc* which may affect the proposed candidate's ability to head the State government.
Now, the Star Online has indicated two worrying cases where the State rulers of Perlis and Terengganu have taken it into their hands (or heads) to appoint their choices against that proposed by the winning political party. [...] In the rulers' increasing (and unjustified) discretion in such appointments the Sultans must have found comfort from the support (direct or otherwise) of the stupid political parties undermining each other. The rulers had been living in tolerated disgrace following the castration of a notorious royal brother by Dr Mahathir (rightfully so and an action fully supported by most Malaysians), but since then they have (under a certain erudite leader) slowly but steadily been clawing their way back to prominence and regained respect and adulation from their subjects.
| ||||||||||
| Sultans’ Daulat Is A Myth – Part Two Posted: 01 Sep 2012 02:22 PM PDT Zaid begins his book by briefly tracing the history of Malay sultans. Unlike the Japanese Imperial family that stretches as far back as 600 BC, or the British to the 11th Century or even earlier, Malay sultans are of recent vintage. The Raja of Perlis was established only in 1834, while that of Johor only slightly older (1819). In modeling the Malaysian constitutional monarchy along the British one, the Reid Commission assumed that Malay sultans were like English kings. That was the first major blunder. To Zaid, it also underscores the pitfall of trying to adopt wholesale foreign concepts or models, not just in law but also much of everything else. Those English monarchs have had centuries of working with a democratically elected government. Earlier, a few of them have had to pay dearly for their errors. Consequently today their system works smoothly. Not so with Malay sultans. Up until British rule, Malay sultans were literally Gods; those sultans could actually take your life. Displease the sultan or prevent him from grabbing whatever you own including your daughter or priced kerbau (water buffalo), and you risked being beheaded, banished, or enslaved (kerah). Those sultans were not above the law as there were no laws then; they were the laws. Malays like me have a lot to be thankful to those colonials for ending those odious royal traits of our culture. No, that is not an expression of my being mentally colonized, rather one of deep gratitude. Malaysia has a disproportionate number of monarchs, 9 out of the nearly 40 worldwide, as Zaid and others have noted. The error in that frequently cited observation is the assumption that our sultans are comparable to those other kings and queens; they are not. There is little in common between Malay sultans and the British Queen or Japanese Emperor. Instead, Malay sultans have more in common with the tribal warlords of Africa and Papua New Guinea, from their insular worldview to their fanciful costumes. The Papuan tribal chiefs have their elaborate colorful headgear, as well as their prominent penile sheaths which they proudly display; ours have their equally ostentatious desta and tanjak. Like those tribal chieftains, our sultans' too are afflicted with their feudal habits. Modernity has not erased our sultan's medieval mentality. When Malaysia became independent, those odious habits began creeping back. Those sultans are not to be blamed entirely, however. "The Rulers' unwillingness to remain within their constitutional roles has been further aggravated," Zaid writes, "by a lack of conviction and courage by the institutions that are supposed to protect and preserve [our] … constitution." Stated differently, our sultans have many enablers. We allow them to regress. We tolerate them when they flout the rules. Members of the Malay royal family are perfectly capable of behaving themselves and keeping within the rules if they were to be told in no uncertain terms that their tantrums would not be tolerated. Consider their behaviors during colonial and Japanese times. It was the sultans who sembah (genuflected to) the colonial and Japanese officers. Today when these Malay princes and princesses are down in Singapore for example, they obey even the basic traffic rules. Those rajas would not dare pull their silly stunts down there; they would be immediately punished. Likewise, if one of our sultans were to skip on his Vegas casino gambling debts, our ambassador would have to quickly bail him out of the county jail. Just as a child whose earlier tantrums had not been corrected would grow up to be an intolerable brat, likewise when our sultans strayed earlier on and there was no one to restrain them, that only encouraged them to go beyond. A few decades later their excesses would trigger the constitutional crises of the 1980s and 1990s that led to the amendments ending respectively the rulers' power to veto legislations and stripping them of legal immunity in their personal conduct. Both were possible because of the strong executive leadership of Prime Minister Mahathir. Today with a government with a less-than-robust mandate and a leader with a banana stem spine, the sultans are emboldened to re-exert themselves; hence the insistence of their daulat or special status.
| ||||||||||
| The Special Position of the Malays (Part One) Posted: 29 Aug 2012 07:19 PM PDT
When, therefore, the Alliance parties agreed to preserve the special position of the Malays in 1957, they were simply continuing what had existed in Malaya the decade before Merdeka. Between 1948 and 1957, the special privileges consisted mainly in reservations for the Malays in four areas:
A memorandum prepared for the Reid Commission set out the extent of these privileges. In the area of landholdings, the special privilege consisted primarily in the reservation of land for Malays pursuant to State laws in gazetted areas in the Malay States (but not in Malacca or Penang). The specific provisions and the extent of the reservations varied from State to State; e.g. in Kelantan, nearly the whole State was reserved for the Malays, whereas in Trengganu, no reservations had been made. Within the public service, qualified Malays were given preference over other applicants for employment. In addition, certain government departments applied a 4:1 or 3:1 ratio of Malays to non-Malays. But as the memorandum noted, these policies applied only to first appointments to the Service and not for subsequent promotions, pursuant to clause 152 of the 1948 Federation of Malaya Agreement, as 'racial considerations cease to count in respect of the promotion of officers who are already in the Government Service.' In education, similar quotas also applied. The memorandum states that in 1948, due to the fact that there were few non-Malays who were federal citizens (Malays formed 85% of the electorate in the first nationwide election in 1955) a 3:1 ratio had been proposed 'to safeguard not only the special position of the Malays but also the legitimate interests of the other communities'. Eventually, it was thought, the awards would be divided in accordance with the proportion of Malays and non-Malays among federal citizens as a whole. But the 3:1 quota came to be seen as fixed, and relaxing it required the consent of the Conference of Rulers. Nevertheless, minimum standards were maintained: each year between 1952 and 1956, because of the shortage of qualified Malays in technical subjects, the British asked for, and Rulers consented to, the majority of overseas scholarships to be given instead to qualified non-Malays. In the area of business licences and permits, the special privilege only applied to the road transport industry, where the policy was applied to licences and permits for taxis, buses and haulage lorries in each State or Settlement, in order to 'render the proportion of [Malay operators] equivalent to their proportion of the population of that State or Settlement as a whole'. It is with this background in mind that we can now consider the agreed position of the Alliance parties at the time of Merdeka. The Alliance memorandum to the Reid Commission on 25 September 1956 provided:
The first point that we may note is that the special position of the Malays was meant to be a limited derogation from the general principle of equality and non-discrimination. The extent of the derogation was to be limited, firstly, by the specified areas to which reservations could be made, and secondly, by the requirement that such reservations must be reasonable. The second point that we may note is that the special position of the Malays was not intended to 'adversely affect or diminish' the rights and opportunities that were then available to the other communities. Further clarification was obtained by Lord Reid on 27 September 1956, during submissions by the Alliance before the Reid Commission:
| ||||||||||
| Posted: 29 Aug 2012 04:27 PM PDT To me, touché was a one-word admittance of one's error or absurd logic when countered by one's opponent's right-on-target sarcasm against one's statement, or perhaps a polite reminder for one to first look into the mirror before making such a statement. It's almost, though not quite, like a 'stone thrower' confessing to the proverb 'Yes, you right, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.
| ||||||||||
| Posted: 29 Aug 2012 01:42 PM PDT | ||||||||||
| Menetapkan Gaji Minimum Adalah Idea Yang Buruk Bagi Rakyat Posted: 29 Aug 2012 11:53 AM PDT Ahli politik adalah individu-individu yang mereka sangka mereka mengenali masyarakat dan tahu apa yang baik dan apa yang buruk untuk mereka. Selain itu, mereka juga sangat pakar dan mahir dalam ilmu untuk memperdaya rakyat dalam menerima sesuatu perkara yang mereka mahukan ke atas rakyat. Dari situ berlumba-lumbalah ahli politik dari kerajaan dan pembangkang untuk memperkenalkan gaji minimum pekerja. Kemahuan golongan persatuan pekerja ini tidak dilayan pada zaman pemerintahan Tun Dr. Mahathir kerana beliau mungkin tahu baik buruk polisi ini. Atas desakan yang kuat, kerajaan Perdana Menteri sekarang terpaksa akur dan menetapkan gaji minimum ini kepada pekerja. Dalam artikel ini, kita akan membincangkan kenapa penetapan ini adalah satu idea yang nampak berniat baik tetapi sebenarnya sesuatu yang buruk bagi masyarakat miskin dan orang berniaga.
1. Tidak Adil Bagi Semua Jika benar kerajaan dapat meningkatkan pendapatan golongan miskin dengan menetapkan gaji minimum, kenapa kerajaan tidak hanya menetapkan gaji minimum ini kepada RM 5000 sahaja. Dengan mudah semua buruh akan mendapat gaji tinggi dan semua orang pun akan gembira. Bagaimana gaji meningkat ? Gaji meningkat apabila produktiviti per kapita setiap rakyat di sesebuah negara itu meningkat. Apabila produktiviti meningkat, pendapatan meningkat, perniagaan berkembang dan seterusnya gaji pekerja akan meningkat dan ini meningkatkan taraf hidup rakyat secara keseluruhan. 2. Memusnahkan Perniagaan Kecil Jika buah epal dijual dengan harga RM 1.00 meningkat kepada RM 2.00. Secara logik mudah, orang akan kurang membeli buah epal. Ini juga yang akan terjadi kepada pasaran buruh di sesebuah negara apabila kerajaan menetapkan gaji minimum. Jika saya mempunyai 10 orang pekerja. Penetapan gaji minimum mungkin hanya mempunya kesan kepada 2 orang daripada pekerja saya. Tetapi peningkatan ini akan mengakibatkan saya untuk menaikkan gaji bagi kesemua pekerja saya. Tidak mungkin pekerja yang sudah 5 tahun bekerja dengan saya akan bersetuju dengan gaji pekerja yang baru masuk kerja bulan lepas. Itu yang pertama, yang keduanya saya sebagai pemilik perniagaan akan memilih untuk mengurangkan penggunaan pekerja sebagai langkah untuk berjimat supaya saya tidak rugi dalam perniagaan yang saya sedang ceburi. 3. Peningkatan Jenayah dan Meningkatkan Pengangguran Apabila peniaga mengurangkan bilangan pekerja kerana tidak mampu membayar gaji minimum. Golongan buruh bawahan ini tidak akan mendapat sebarang kerja dan ini akan meningkatkan pengangguran dikalangan masyarakat. Seperti yang anda sudah ketahui, peningkatan pengangguran akan menyebabkan kadar jenayah juga meningkat. 4. Beban yang terpaksa ditanggung oleh semua Penetapan gaji minimum akan menyebabkan peningkatan harga barang. Manakan tidak, kos pembuatan sesebuah barangan itu telah meningkat jadi sudah tentu kos ini akan digilirkan kepada pelanggan yang akan membeli sesebuah produk. Dengan itu akan berlaku peningkatan harga barang serta peningkatan kadar inflasi. Ini akan menyebabkan semua orang terutamanya pengguna terpaksa menanggung kerugian Dalam pasaran bebas, harga barangan dan gaji pekerja tidak seharusnya ditetapkan oleh sesiapa samada ahli politik atau kerajaan. Ianya seharusnya dibiarkan terapung dan bebas. Pernah dalam satu pertikaian pada zaman Rasulullah, baginda dipanggil untuk menetapkan harga roti di pasar. Baginda bersabda "Aku tidak mahu darah mereka ini di tangan aku di akhirat nanti" ("An Islamic economic system largely supports a market mechanism for coordination Read more at: http://www.shahabudeenjalil.com/2012/08/menetapkan-gaji-minimum-adalah-idea-yang-buruk-bagi-rakyat/
|
| 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