Huduh is good for Malaysia?

Enough with hudud

The growing number of politicians in this country who think that hudud is a good idea for Malaysia should see the video that is circulating online of the execution of an Afghan woman by her husband for alleged adultery.

HERE is a video circulating online which everyone in this country should watch:



It depicts the execution of an Afghan woman for alleged adultery. Her husband shoots her many times in the head while being cheered on by a crowd of men.

If anyone thinks this happened many years ago during the Taliban–era, they are sadly mistaken.
This gruesome event happened recently, in present-day non-Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

The authorities are now looking for the executioner who has predictably disappeared. But really they should arrest the entire crowd that watched it, as accessories to murder.

I think this video should be shown to the growing number of politicians in this country who think hudud is a good idea for Malaysia. In particular, it should be shown to those who have just called for the same.

If they can watch the video without at least blanching and truly think that’s what they want, then I hope they will be held accountable for not only the exodus of Malaysians from this country but also for the drastic reduction in foreign investments coming in.

If they want to blow us back to the Stone Age, then they should at least be made to answer for it.

What is it with some of our politicians who seem to have taken leave of their senses?

Is the loathing for reading and knowledge so widespread that they have to show it off with such ill-informed statements?

In a world where problems are increasingly sophisticated and complicated, is hudud the only response these people can come up with?

Maybe they should get out a bit more.

They might like to travel to places like Pakistan where the literacy rate is all of 55% and where, in some areas, only 22% of women can read.

Or, go to Iran where a full 40% of the population lives below the poverty line. They might also like to notice the vast numbers of children forced to do backbreaking work in the Middle East.

Or they can stay home and instead of reading the tabloids and beefing up their knowledge on which actress is about to marry which rich man, they might like to read up on our very own Federal Constitution which basically says that not only can’t you have hudud laws, you also can’t impose it on anyone who isn’t Muslim.

Unless they have some subconscious need to lose the elections for their beloved party, then they might pause and see where this is going.

But introspection is not a Malaysian strong point.

Somebody floats an “idea” that they think will attract some press attention and next thing you know, everyone else is jumping on the bandwagon.

Never mind that none of the so-called hudud punishments can be found in the Quran.

For years, our Government has steadily pooh-poohed the idea of having hudud in this country because that was what the Opposition (or at least some of them) wanted. For years those of us who knew that hudud did not belong in the 21st century have held on to that as our bulwark against theocratic rule in this country.

Now, however, the government supporters have changed their tune and are echoing the Opposition’s line all those years ago. They seriously think this is the way to win an election?

If hudud is to be implemented, then I hope someone realises that it has to be implemented fairly.

Therefore not only will petty thieves get their hands cut off but major-league million-ringgit bribe-takers too. And no doubt we will have morality police patrolling the streets and checking that everyone is being good.

MUSINGS
By MARINA MAHATHIR 

Related posts
 Practise 'Addin', a Malaysian way of life? PAS Vows Hudud for ...
Gender segregation slammed!
Insap forum on Hudud leaves public still grappling with ...  

Related articles

• Hudud issue threatens Malaysian's future

  ---

What’s minimum wage in Malaysia?

I REFER to the Minimum Wages Order which the Human Resources Minister made by notification in the Gazette on July 16.

Although the said Order comes into operation on Jan 1, it is frustrating and appalling that it does not define what components can constitute “wages” to make up the minimum wage of RM900 for Peninsula Malaysia and RM800 for Sabah, Sarawak and the Federal Territory of Labuan.

Throughout the Order, the term “wages” is used repeatedly without denoting clearly and explicitly whether the term refers to merely basic pay and/or includes fixed and regular allowances paid to employees e.g. shift allowances, attendance allowances, meal allowances, overtime meal allowances, laundry allowances, competency allowances, etc.

To add to the ambiguity, the illustration in Section 4 of the Order, introduces yet another undefined term “current basic wage”.

Is this meant to suggest that only basic wage can be part of the minimum wage?
While I understand that it is only an illustration, this does not help for purposes of clarity.
The National Wages Consultative Council Act 2011, under which the said Order was made, defines wages as having the same meaning assigned to it in section 2 of the Employment Act 1955.

The definition of wages under the Employment Act 1955 is “wages refer to basic wages and all other payments in cash payable to an employee for work done in respect of his contract of service.”

It excludes five types of payments which are mostly clearly defined. The definition of wages in the Employment Act 1955 is by no means a clear science.

Debate rages in the Labour Court even now, some 50 plus years after the Act was made law, as to what amounts to wages or not.

If one refers to paragraph three of the First Schedule of the Employment Act 1955, it states: “For the purposes of this Schedule wages means wages as defined in section 2 but shall not include any payment by way of commission, subsistence allowance and overtime payment”.

This means that under section 2 of the Employment Act 1955, commissions are part of wages. And since “wages” in the said Order refers to the definition of wages in section 2 of the Employment Act 1955, it follows that commissions are part of wages to make up the minimum wage.

Say if I hire a salesman and pay him a basic of RM500. In some months, when sales are good, he earns commissions in excess of RM400, and therefore his wages are more than RM900.

In other months, when sales are bad, his commissions are below RM400 and thus his wages are below RM900. It follows then that for the months where sales are good, I as an employer have not flouted the said Order whereas in the other months, I am in breach of the said Order.

Am I as an employer expected to watch the commission trend of each of my salesmen?

Imagine a car dealer who has 50 dealerships each hiring 20 salesmen. How am I to track this?

I do not underestimate the complexity of the issue of what components should or should not be part of wages.

I will be the first to agree that it is not an easy subject. However, if we are inclined to come up with a minimum wage with such uncertainty revolving around the word “wages”, surely the fixing of a minimum wage is to put the proverbial cart before the horse.

Let me remind the learned folks at the Human Resources Ministry and the Attorney-General’s Chambers that all these ambiguities are not doing any good to the employers or the employees; neither is it going to assist in its smooth implementation.

Unless a holistic and precise approach is made to the question of what constitutes “wages”, this very attempt to introduce a new regulation on minimum wages appears to be hurried through for political expediency and far removed from the concept of a high income society.\

FRUSTRATED HR PRACTITIONER
Kuala Lumpur

Related posts:
Malaysia's Minimum wage’s benefits and effects 
Malaysia's minimum wage, and its implications 
Are Malaysian Employment Laws Challenging?

Japan-China Territorial Dispute is Serious, and Escalating!

The Prime Minister’s residence in Tokyo has a “war room.”  During the a.m. hours of July 11 the room was bustling as government and Japanese

Self Defense Force officials studied intelligence and heard briefings on intrusions of three Chinese navy ships into waters around the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyutai Islands) claimed by Japan as its “exclusive economic zone”  (EEZ).

The three Chinese ships had entered Japan’s EEZ waters after 4 a.m. on the 11th.  They were met, followed, and ordered out of the EEZ by Japanese Self Defense Force ships.  They finally departed just after 8 a.m.

Later in the day, Japan’s deputy foreign minister summoned the Chinese ambassador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and delivered a formal protest over the Chinese “intrusion.”

At the time, Japan’s foreign minister, Gemba Koichiro, was in Phnom Penh attending the ASEAN foreign ministers’ summit.  That day, the 11th, Gemba met in a hotel with Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi.  The meeting was scheduled to take 30 minutes.  It continued for 50 minutes.

This could not have been a pleasant meeting.   Very likely, it was lacking in the normal diplomatic decorum.  Seemingly overnight, Japan-China relations have turned icy, bitter, and emotionally charged.

The Gemba-Yang meeting was the first since Prime Minister Noda announced on July 7 that it had become Japanese policy for the central government to purchase the uninhabited Senkaku islands–now privately owned by Japanese interests and administered by Okinawa prefecture–that are also claimed by China, which calls the chain “Diaoyutai.”

Gemba’s talking points with Yang were scripted by Noda who had told reporters on July 7:  “There can be no doubt that the Senkaku Islands are part of Japanese territory, both under international law and from a historical point of view.  The Senkakus are under the effective control of our nation, and there is no territorial issue with any country over the islands.”  (The Yomiuri Shimbun, July 8.)

How Yang responded we can only guess.  We can imagine that the two men talked—or shouted—past each other, uttering almost identical, conflicting positions.

The incursion of the three Chinese vessels was plainly a response to Noda’s announcement, and a signal from China that “nationalization” of the islands by Japan would be met by further escalation.

Tokyo mayor Ishihara Shintaro first touted in April the idea of purchasing the islands, now owned by a man from Saitama prefecture, by Tokyo municipality.  Since then he has continued to advance this idea, setting up a special team in the Tokyo government under his direct control, and raising donations from around the country that reportedly now total more than JPY 1.3 billion (USD 165 million)

Ishihara’s announcement drew a furious response from Beijing.  Also, a public comment from Japan’s ambassador to China, Niwa Uichiro, a former president of one of Japan’s largest general trading companies (sogoshosha), C. Itoh & Co.

“If Ishihara’s plan is implemented, it will produce a crisis in Sino-Japan relations. We cannot let it ruin everything we’ve done in past decades,” Niwa was quoted as saying by the Financial Times on June 7.

This statement raised hackles in nationalist circles and in both major Japanese political parties.  To hard-liners, such a statement displayed weakness and lack of resolve, and sent the wrong message to China.

PM Noda seems to have hoped to quell some of the controversy and unify Japan’s response by “centralizing” Ishihara’s initiative and making it a national government initiative.

The confrontation between Japan and China on the Senkaku/Diaoyutai issue has escalated to a truly dangerous level.  Objectively it must be stated that it has been Japan that has done the most to raise tensions.  Further escalation cannot be in the interests of either side.  While his leadership in domestic policy matters has generally been laudable, even brilliant, in relations with China on this issue he seems captive to interests that would lead Japan into a trap.

When Japan and China established diplomatic relations in 1972, Premier Zhou Enlai agreed that the issue of Daiyutai (Senkaku) could be put to one side until the time for resolution “was ripe.”  In 1978, when the two countries concluded an historic peace treaty, Deng Xiaoping said of the issue that it could be settled by “our children and grandchildren.”

Japan seems compelled to force the issue with China, while China would very likely be satisfied to live with the status quo, as long as Japan would acknowledge that it too has a claim on the islands and surrounding area.   Diplomatic negotiation of some kind of modus vivendi and mutual efforts at resource development and safe-guarding navigation would be possible on this basis.

Nothing so positive seems likely under current trends.  Quite the opposite.  Increasing, and increasingly dangerous, confrontation seems to lie ahead.

By Stephen Harner, Forbes Contributor

Newscribe : get free news in real time