KHAIRY Jamaluddin was dressed in a traditional baju Melayu when he addressed the World Health Organisation meeting in Geneva recently. The handsome Health Minister certainly chose the right forum to dress up.

After all, he was elected as one of the five vice-presidents of the United Nations agency responsible for international public health.

He made Malaysia even prouder when he spoke in impeccable English. KJ, as he is popularly known, also cleverly answered questions from journalists.

Khairy reminded me of Tan Sri Razali Ismail, who also wore the baju Melayu when he addressed the UN as the president of its general assembly in 1996.

The charming and suave diplomat, as most of us old enough would remember, delivered his speeches in English.

Both these gentlemen – KJ and Razali – are true Malay heroes. They topped the hierarchy of international organisations because of their leadership abilities, and certainly not because of affirmative actions.

It’s likely Khairy earned the attention of the audience because he spoke in English.

But Razali and KJ’s proficiency in the language didn’t make them any less Malay. Ironically, the nationalistic politicians praised them for their attire but chose to keep mum about them speaking in English.

In Khairy’s case, it wasn’t just English but good, crisp English – the result of his sound education.

Had they spoken in Malay, the impact of their speeches might have been lost, particularly if they had injected British or American humour.

No doubt, the essence and substance of their speeches matter more than the language used, but those of us who must listen to translations would know the monotonous, deadpan voice of the translators can’t match the impact of the delivered language.

It would be lost in translation, as the saying goes. To put it simply, we’d be gobsmacked if we could hear the horrendous errors made.

For the written word, we know different languages have unique grammar and syntax rules, besides differences in spelling, subject-object verb agreement and sentence construction.

Honestly, there’s nothing wrong with our Malaysian politicians speaking in Bahasa Malaysia at international forums. After all, their counterparts from Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea, Vietnam and Japan would probably do so in their national languages.

In fact, it would be better for them to speak in Bahasa Malaysia – and save Malaysia from international embarrassment – if their English is atrocious. We cringe in horror when we hear their poor delivery, and I think they know who they are.

The saving grace is that at least they tried to speak in English, and they could be forgiven since English isn’t their mother tongue.

It has been erroneously pointed out that Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong speaks English at international meetings because the republic’s national language is English.

Correction: Malay is Singapore’s official language while English is the working language.

So, advocates of the Malay language as an Asean official language will be pleased to know that they can add Singapore to the list.

But Lee understands that English is the most used international language. There are only six officially recognised international languages in the world and we can argue till the cows come home, but nothing is going to change that. Our national linguistic pride is hardly a concern on the international stage.

No one in his or her right mind can argue the importance of Bahasa Malaysia. Bahasa Melayu is the correct term as it is a Malay language. Likewise, it is the Chinese language – not China or Taiwan language.

While Bahasa Melayu is factually correct, we should try as much as we can to use the linguistic term Bahasa Malaysia, just like our neighbour which sticks to using Bahasa Indonesia. We seemed to interchange too often.

Bahasa Malaysia is used to denote that it’s a unifying language. That will perhaps make some of us understand that Indonesia will always use the term Bahasa Indonesia and not Malay, as it has over 1,000 ethnic groups in the sprawling archipelago.

English has always been an asset to Malaysia. When tourists come to Malaysia, they are relieved that they can comfortably converse with us.

Likewise, investors who pour millions, if not billions, into Malaysia, feel at ease and assured dealing with us because of our English proficiency. Having an established legal system also helps.

So, it’s bizarre when we hear of punitive actions against government officials who use English. Imagine, if you’re from the Foreign Affairs, Tourism, Arts and Culture, or International Trade and Industry Ministries, and you’ve been instructed to use only Bahasa Malaysia.

It defies logic and even puts Malaysia out of reaping its due benefits. English is our competitive edge, and we choose to ignore it.

There is little to gain by politicising the Malay language and proving our Malay-ness because it’s not going to help Malaysia. Instead, other nations will close their doors on us.

Malaysians are beginning to perceive that there is a sudden push for our leaders and officials to use only Bahasa Malaysia because these advocates, in fact, lack the command or confidence in speaking in English.

These leaders have a poor sense of self-esteem, or fail in standing on the global platform, as aptly put by Free Malaysia Today columnist Adzhar Ibrahim.

Their poor command of English scares them as they risk being outshined by the likes of Khairy, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, Tengku Datuk Seri Zafrul Abdul Aziz and Datuk Seri Mohamed Azmin Ali, who are comfortable with the language.

Relegating English won’t help our university students one bit. It’s already well known that employers are looking for job seekers who can read and write proper English. Our myopic and selfish politicians are sending the wrong message to these young people.

The public sector is no longer able to absorb more staff into the bloated civil service, where the use of BM can be enforced. But no such rule exists for the private sector.

Even government linked corporations continue to use English. It’s such a waste of time going through this discourse again when our leaders need to attend to more urgent issues such as inflation, cost of living, economic recovery and the weak ringgit. Let’s get our priorities right.

There’s obviously a generational gap as our previous leaders or civil servants were British-trained or studied in MCKK (Malay College Kuala Kangsar) before entering Universiti Malaya.

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim studied Malay in UM but as a Penangite, he was exposed to a diverse society.

But we have come to this now. It’s mind boggling that the Foreign Ministry has been directed to set up a special language and culture unit in every mission abroad to teach the staff’s children Malay. They could, instead, focus on improving the linguistic skills of our diplomats, especially English, when given every opportunity and the resources to do so. To punish civil servants for using English is incredulous.

This should not be a zero-sum game. We live in a multiracial country where Malay, Chinese and Tamil are widely spoken and yet, most of us can only converse in one or two languages.

If Malay is the national language, English is an international language. We should learn Chinese, Bahasa Indonesia and Arabic because we know how important these countries are to us economically.

And here’s the irony – London remains a popular destination for Malaysians, especially our politicians and officials, because they find themselves comfortable in Britain.

The elite happily send their children to private schools and universities, so they can be above the B40 group who are trapped in our politicised institutions and systems.

Britain still retains its charm, and visiting London remains a draw. Obviously, the use of English is one reason. Never mind many of these regular Malaysian political elite visitors choose to remain silent when it comes to the never ending discourse on the use of English or Bahasa Malaysia. As the Britons would say, cor blimey!

When Joko met Elon: Musk chose to talk to the Indonesian president as his country is now seen as a huge economic market with a fast-growing middle-class population. – Reuters

THE picture of President Jokowi in his rolled-up long sleeve white shirt and Tesla boss Elon Musk in a round-collar black T-shirt, says it all. Just two powerful guys hanging out together.

One is the leader of the most populous Muslim nation but is known for his moderate and secular stand. The other is the world’s richest man, known for his edgy innovation and unconventional investment strategies.

They looked comfortable at the informal meeting, and we can assume that Joko Widodo and Musk spoke in English, even though the former speaks in Bahasa Indonesia at global events.

Jokowi has captured the imagination of many with his modesty and dressed down image. With his slender stature, he doesn’t seem to have the cut of a leader, yet his inexpensive attire has only strengthened his man-of-the-people image.

I was fortunate to get an appointment to meet Jokowi in 2014 when he assumed office, a golden ticket I received through a very well-connected Malaysian friend who lives in Jakarta. Let’s just call him a strategist. Jokowi had come to power that year and he wanted to speak to the Malaysian media.

I was told to dress in smart casuals but decided to put on a jacket without a tie. I felt the need to respect the Bapak Presiden since an interview had been lined up.

Lo and behold, Jokowi greeted me in his trademark white shirt and black pants, wearing a pair of non- matching brown shoes to boot.

We spoke in Bahasa Indonesia. Having studied Indonesian literature in Sixth Form and Malay in university certainly helped with my fraternising.

Jokowi was friendly, modest, humble and soft-spoken. In Javanese, he is called a wong cilik, or little people. The English equivalent to that is Indonesian people regarding him as one of them.

Over the years, I travelled to many parts of Indonesia, away from Jakarta, to listen to how the people felt about him. Fast forward to 2022, and his popularity is at its peak as he enters the final phase of his leadership.

He has been entrusted with the chairmanship of G20, or Group of 20 countries of the world’s largest economies, and in 2023, Indonesia will be the chair of Asean.

By early 2024, his second term as president will come to an end, but he would have left a legacy, with most Indonesians believing that he has brought stability, kept Islamic extremism at bay and fought corruption.

More importantly, he has brought confidence and pride to Indonesia. The people feel Jokowi has done well for them, despite the growing discontent over the cost of living. The country is also on a leap to a new phase.

Musk chose to talk to Jokowi – excluding Malaysia and others – simply because Indonesia is the largest producer of nickel, which is essential for batteries for electric vehicles.

Indonesia, with its 300 million population, is now seen as a huge economic market with a fast-growing middle-class population.

Top foreign-owned businesses that have invested in Indonesia include Unilever, Google, Astra International, MedcoEnergi, L-Oreal and Toyota.

If this isn’t a wake-up call for Malaysia, then what is?

In many areas, Indonesia is either just behind us and breathing down our neck or has caught up and even surpassed us.

The biggest psychological barrier that many of us Malaysians have over our neighbours is that we think we’re better off. It’s a classic case of sombong bodoh.

In the minds of some condescending and ignorant Malaysians, Indonesia is just a supplier of maids, and construction and palm oil estate workers.

Yes, we’re dependent on them, and we’re grateful, too, but goodness, Indonesia has progressed so much faster.

It has charted impressive economic development with a projected GDP growth of 5.1% in 2022.

Incredibly for a predominantly Muslim country, Indonesia has no religious insecurity. Although the Muslim groups are powerful, the embrace of Buddhism and Hinduism is open.

There are no half-baked history scholars, unlike in Malaysia, who try to rewrite history by erasing the Hindu past or blacking them out of school textbooks.

It’s also no walk in the park for Jokowi to hold a country of 17,508 islands and 1,340 ethnic groups together.

Without doubt, Malay is the root language of Bahasa Indonesia, but it’s the political identity Indonesia chooses to retain rather than a linguistic term. It has effectively embraced unity in diversity or “bhinneka tunggal ika”, a Kawi or old Javanese phrase, as a national motto, and would rather emphasise its Bahasa Indonesia identity instead of an ethnic one.

While it’s commendable to promote the Malay language as an official language of Asean, Bahasa Indonesia will most likely be standard for political expediency, as Indonesia is mindful, and even sensitive, of the wide linguistic range of its diverse population across its archipelago of nearly two million square kilometres.

Don’t forget that Indonesia stretches all the way to Papua, the eastern most part of Indonesia, with its Melanesian people, and they use Bahasa Indonesia as its formal language.

While Indonesia has been scarred by the racial riots of the past, with ethnic Chinese being targeted, there is now a greater openness and even admissions of how ethnic relationships were badly handled.

There have been numerous successful movies made that feature the riots, and currently, Indonesia’s new breed of ethnic Chinese movie makers and actors including Ernest Prakasa, Dion Wiyoko, Laura Basuki, Morgan Oey and Jenny Zhang Wiradinata have emerged with national celebrity status.

Clearly, our Malaysian politicians need humility as part of their political branding if they hope to endear themselves to us, the common folk.

We’ve endured enough opening speeches taking up 10 minutes of salutations to titled people, politicians with entourage and civil service officials who must take time off from work to welcome and send off politicians and overbearing leaders – those enamoured by showing off that they are more important than us.

Malaysians have had enough of leaders who think they are entitled and privileged. Haven’t we been reading of leaders with millions in the bank accounts or homes stacked with cash and expensive handbags? Not forgetting, too many people have police outriders too, it seems.

Truth be told, the sense of self-importance among some politicians has become nauseating.

And it’s also time our leaders talk about national identity, national aspirations and national hopes – rather than sticking to the narrow ethnic and religious narrative.

Keluarga Malaysia must be seen as embracing diversity openly and sincerely for it to appear genuine. Politicians can’t talk about it and then do something else the next day, or else it will be seen as a hollow slogan.

We won’t attract the likes of Musk to Malaysia if we keep writing the wrong headlines in global news. We need to have the most appropriate branding and narrative, and that means making the right decisions.

Investors have plenty to choose from besides Indonesia, with Vietnam and Thailand ready with their huge manpower supply.

Ceteris paribus, or all other things being equal, we’ll need extra factors to draw investors in, including our diversity, strength as an English-speaking nation, and a strong, clean and moderate government.

Investors will never pump money into Malaysia if we keep changing Prime Ministers.

Controversial figure: The recent appointment of Pasir Salak Member of Parliament Datuk Seri Tajuddin Abdul Rahman as the ambassador to Indonesia has raised many questions. – Bernama

CONTROVERSIAL Pasir Salak Member of Parliament Datuk Seri Tajuddin Abdul Rahman has found himself facing a hail of brickbats following his appointment as the ambassador to Indonesia. Well, that’s hardly surprising.

He may have been re-elected by the constituents of Pasir Salak, Perak, for several terms since 2008 and appeals to his voters, but not many of us are admirers.

Honestly, we’re horrified. After all, he’s not representing Pasir Salak but Malaysia, as the country’s representative to Indonesia.

To put it bluntly, in the eyes of many Malaysians, Tajuddin isn’t what one would call a diplomatic person.

While the officials at Wisma Putra are unable to voice their discontent, some have privately conveyed their frustrations to former Malaysian ambassadors, and the media, too.

Foreign Ministry officials are still recovering from the shocking removal of our ambassador and consul-general to the United Arab Emirates, for allegedly not discharging their duties well.

But whether their sackings were justified or otherwise, the dismissals have gone down badly with the officials, and the appointment of Tajuddin is simply rubbing salt into the wound.

After all, they would surely have preferred for a professional diplomat to be appointed to Indonesia, rather than a politician. If it must be a politician, then at least one with an impeccable reputation and resume.

Previously a politician, Datuk Seri Zahrain Mohamed Hashim was named to the post. The former Ummo-politician-turned-PKR-leader was appointed after the 2013 general election but was recalled from the posting when Pakatan Harapan came to power.

Zahrain, a former Bayan Baru MP, was given the plum job after he quit PKR together with four other PKR MPs in 2010 and rejoined Umno in 2012.

Tajuddin is certainly an experienced leader but unfortunately, he has an image problem, which he only has himself to blame for. Perception is everything in politics, and he should know better.

Communication is certainly not one of his finer traits. In fact, he surely ranks lowly in that department.

Being diplomatic is defined by a person’s ability to be sensitive in dealing with issues or persons, and their ability to achieve peaceful resolutions or facilitate discussions, particularly in conflicts. More importantly, it is someone who has finesse, able to build mutual respect and is tactful.

It doesn’t look like Tajuddin ticks any of these boxes because he has a history of controversy and is known to be uncouth, brash, crass, and has frequently used abrasive language throughout his political career.

He probably thrives on this combative approach when he debates at the Dewan Rakyat, which explains why many Malaysians are bummed by the announcement.

His poor handling of a collision involving two trains when he was the Prasarana Malaysia Bhd chairman last year is legendary, to put it mildly, and he got himself sacked from the post following criticism that he had been insensitive at a press conference he held after the accident which left 213 passengers injured.

Who can forget his infamous warning to the media not to “probok” (provoke) him?

Then there was the time when he released a statement threatening “to slap” ethnic Chinese who air their complaints outside Malaysia.

According to the Malay Mail Online, in 1995, Tajuddin was sacked by the Umno leadership for his involvement in money politics to the tune of RM6mil for the post of Pasir Salak division chief, which was held by then Perak Menteri Besar Tan Sri Ramli Ngah Talib. However, he was reinstated three years later.

In 2016, he defended Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and his wife, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, for the latter’s extravagant lifestyle, saying it was perfectly “normal” to purchase expensive handbags. He saw no crime in it and claimed “(just one or two bags, why not? She’s a lady, I know girls like handbags. I was told one of the ways of tackling a girl is buying (her) a handbag.”

Tajuddin has expectedly earned the defence of some Umno leaders, especially those from Perak, but this chorus of party support is hardly convincing.

It’s almost certain that Tajuddin will ride through this storm of a controversy. He will just shrug at the anticipated criticisms. However, he should remember that respect is commanded, and not demanded.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob has said Tajuddin’s appointment was agreed by Malaysia and Indonesia.

While host countries have turned down the nominations of ambassadors, often without a formal reply, as it is the diplomatic procedure rather than a downright rejection, in this case, President Jokowi has accepted Tajuddin and probably merely wish to respect the wishes of Malaysia.

But one would wonder what was on the minds of Jokowi and the Indonesian foreign ministry officials when Tajuddin’s nomination landed on their tables.

Tajuddin has received his appointment as a political reward, it’s that simple, and not because of his brilliance. However, the timing may not be best.

Indonesia, under Jokowi’s leadership, is on a forward leap, and he has done remarkably well with his competence in setting new standards of governance.

He is the envy of the world, with his simple lifestyle and moderate stand in the world’s most populous Muslim country.

Jokowi is at the peak of his popularity now, currently being chairman of the Group of 20 and playing host leader of the Asean Summit next year.

Well, Tajuddin will just have to prove his critics wrong – that he’s not a national embarrassment. Hopefully he doesn’t bite off more than he can chew.

Fashion faux pas?: Leni Fernandez, 43, was stopped from entering Wisma Persekutuan in Johor Baru after a security guard deemed the dress she’s wearing in this picture was ‘inappropriate’. – Pic provided

It’s never ever been in vogue to cast judgment on people’s attire, bar dress code infringement.

HERE we go again – another decently attired woman prohibited from entering a government building.

Without doubt, government buildings, including police stations, have dress codes. These regulations aren’t just for females but also men, who are denied entry if they’re in shorts or singlets. But what has sparked outrage in numerous cases is the length, pardon the pun, security guards go to perform their duties.

Their interpretations in some cases have been so extreme that Malaysians can be forgiven for thinking PAS has taken over the running of the Federal Government with such Taliban-style enforcement.

Many of these women were not even in mini-skirts or shorts, yet these security guards, or Rela members in some cases, have been entrusted as moral police, or “fashion police” in these instances.

In numerous cases, such guards even handed visitors sarongs to cover their legs with. Many meekly abided by these instructions because they just wanted to get on with their work.

Last week, another similar controversy surfaced. A woman was stopped from entering Wisma Persekutuan, the federal government building in Johor Baru.

Lawyer Norman Fernandez claimed that his wife Leni was denied entry into the building for wearing inappropriate clothing as determined by the guard on duty.

Fernandez claimed that his wife, who has been visiting the government building’s café for meals over the past few years, was wearing a skirt that extended around 7cm below her knees and had on closed-toed shoes.

He reportedly said the guard insisted that non-Muslims looking to enter the building should don clothing that reached the ankles, or long pants. Fernandez said that their requests to speak to the security guard’s superiors fell on deaf ears with no one showing up to offer an explanation even after an hour’s wait.

Malaysians who saw Leni’s attire from the picture must have surely thrown their hands up in disbelief as it can hardly be construed provocative or revealing, as claimed by the guard.

Seriously, the guard needs help of the professional variety. What kind of a warped and arbitrary decision was that? What did he see or imagine that most of us, normal Malaysians, can’t?

What’s disturbing and distressing is that there’s been no response from the guard’s employer.

The management’s deafening silence has given the impression that it supports the guard’s action.

Choosing not to respond is certainly not an option. The management of Wisma Persekutuan needs to investigate and disclose to the public if indeed female visitors to the building are required to don attire that reaches their ankles, or if what transpired was an isolated incident due to an independent decision by a guard.

For many of us, it’s another case of over-zealous enforcement devolving into moral policing and imposition of one’s values on others, instead of guards ensuring the security of staff and visitors to a building, as Johor Wanita MCA chief Wong You Fong aptly said.

“We are further perturbed that security personnel of any building management with prurient minds may exploit such ‘enforcement powers’ to legitimise ogling at women’s or even men’s physiques on the pretext of distinguishing dressing, which they deem is provocative or is not,” she said in a statement.

She added that female visitors looking to enter a government building while dressed in decent and modest outfits, as opposed to short pants and sleeveless tops, should not be denied entry.

“Especially in times of emergencies, the moral policing of clothing worn would result in inconvenience or could even make a difference to life and death,” read the statement.

I’m confident that most of our government officials have more important and urgent work to attend to than fuss over a visitor’s dressing, unless they are excessive individuals.

Some common sense will need to be exercised especially in police stations. Surely in an emergency, one cannot be expected to change one’s attire, before heading to a police station, for example.

I’d like to believe that most civil servants are dedicated and hardworking, but unfortunately, the latest incident has cast a bad light on Wisma Persekutuan down south.

If it’s simply poor judgment on the part of a solitary security guard, he should have been reprimanded by the higher-ups for failure to exercise discretionary powers reasonably.

Let’s not skirt around the issue but be rational instead.

Malaysian pride: Tan, who is from Muar, was appointed to the most senior technology position at Nasa recently. – nasa.gov

EVERY time we read about Malaysians making a mark globally in their respective fields, pride and joy course through our veins knowing these people have elevated our country’s standing.

Recently, that proverbial uplifting news featured six young Malaysians acquiring seats in the prestigious Harvard University for the class of 2026.

The students received offers of admission amidst stiff competition from a global applicant pool of 61,220 students, it was reported.

Last week, another piece of good news surfaced. A Malaysian from Muar, Johor, Florence Tan, was appointed Deputy Chief Technologist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa) – the most senior technology position.

She had left Malaysia at 18 to study in the United States, and then started to work with Nasa, beginning as an intern at one of its research centres.

When I read those two stories, I couldn’t help pondering if the six Harvard students would return to Malaysia someday, perhaps after gaining experience in the US and other countries.

And what can Tan really do in Malaysia, even if she chose to return home? After all, we can’t cater to her expertise, experience and skill in aeronautics.

But more and more, when we read of these high achievers, the media is compelled to refer to them as “Malaysia-born,” which is a euphemism for Malaysians who have emigrated overseas and are not nationals of our country any longer.

At least we’re sure that two legendary Malaysians of global repute, Hollywood actress Tan Sri Michelle Yeoh and shoe designer Datuk Jimmy Choo are hanging on to their Malaysian passports.

Unfortunately, Malaysia is one of the countries most affected by brain drain, as it faces a major problem in not only being incapable of delivering the required talent, but also in failing to retain the current local talent or attracting foreign ones, as a report in cs.stanford.edu put it.

The World Bank defines brain drain as the migration of talent across borders, which has an impact on Malaysia’s aspiration to become a high-income nation.

“Human capital is the bedrock of the high-income economy. Sustained and skill-intensive growth will require talent going forward.

“For Malaysia to be successful in its journey to high income, it will need to develop, attract, and retain talent. Brain drain does not appear to square with this objective: Malaysia needs talent, but talent seems to be leaving.

“Brain drain is a subject of intense debate and controversy, but surprisingly few studies have characterised the phenomenon in the Malaysian context – be it in terms of magnitude, impact, or policy response.

“What complicates matters further are the statistical discrepancies that limit the quality, availability, timeliness, and comparability of international migration data,” wrote its senior economic advisor Philip Schellekens.

He quoted the World Bank’s Malaysia Economic Monitor saying that the Malaysian diaspora – the group of skilled and unskilled Malaysia-born women, men and children living overseas – is estimated conservatively at one million worldwide as of 2010.

“A third among these represent brain drain – those with tertiary education among the diasporas. This is not to suggest that others are not ‘brainy’, but educational attainment is the only available proxy that is consistently available across recipient countries.

“To put the numbers in perspective, two factors are important: the size of the skills base and the profile of immigration.

“Because of the narrow skills base, brain drain is intense in Malaysia and is further aggravated by positive selection effects, as the best and brightest leave first.

“Further, brain drain is not alleviated by compensating inflows, since migration into Malaysia is mainly low-skilled with some 60% with primary education or less and the number of high-skilled expats has fallen by a quarter since 2004.”

As of 2019, there are 952,261 Malaysians or Singaporeans of partial or full Malaysian origin residing in Singapore. And including the permanent population in the country, about 350,000 Malaysians cross the Johor-Singapore Causeway daily to commute to work or school.

Australia is another popular choice for Malaysians, with 177,460 people living there in 2020, according to a report, while the 2016 census from the Australian Bureau of Statistics reveals that 138,364 Malaysians became permanent residents or citizens.

There’s nothing wrong with us continuing to look for low-skilled labour for our oil palm estates, restaurants and homes – many West Asian countries are in the same predicament. However, Malaysia needs to embrace the global mobility of talent, too.

For a start, we must admit that the biggest criteria are the differences in earnings, career prospects, opportunities, professional exposure and quality of life.

The elephant in the room for many Malaysians is the discontent with our country’s affirmative policies, particularly among the non-bumiputras who see their chances of climbing up the ladder hampered by their ethnic origin.

The painful truth is, many talented non-bumiputras, especially the Chinese, make up the bulk of the diaspora.

In all fairness, the government, via Talent Corporation Malaysia, has developed many initiatives to encourage Malaysians to return, but a better carrot needs to be dangled.

Singapore, one of the best-run countries, has the same problem as it faces a challenge to retain quality citizens because the country’s brain drain rate is higher than the global average with six in 10 Singa-poreans willing to leave the country in pursuit of a better job, according to a Randstad Workmonitor research report.

The study revealed that the brain drain rate in the Lion City is higher than the global average of 50%. It’s also higher than Hong Kong’s 56%, but slightly lower than Malaysia’s 66%.

It said 68% of Singaporean workers, aged between 18 and 34 years old, are willing to pack up and leave their country.

In many ways, ethnic Chinese, like their forefathers, are a migratory race, regardless of their nationalities, with many selecting Canada and Australia as their choices during the last 20 years, according to statista.com

In 2013, the United States and Canada became the countries with the highest immigration rate of millionaires from China, according to Hurun Research Institute.

China is reportedly one of the world’s largest emigration countries as well as the country with the biggest outflow of high net worth individuals between 2003 and 2013. Likewise for many Hong Kongers and Taiwanese.

Our politicians love to use the term “world class” when they talk about Malaysia, but we need to really walk the talk or else it remains hollow and unconvincing. If we’re indeed top of the heap, we should be getting top notch workers queueing up to work here.

Duty bound: Once a report is lodged, the MACC, which is headquartered in Putrajaya, has to investigate the allegation, no matter how popular the implicated person is. – IZZRAFIQ ALIAS/The Star

THE investigation by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) on Court of Appeal judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali has left a sour taste in the mouths of Malaysians, as he was the judge who convicted and sentenced Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

Many see this corporate-lawyer-turned-judge as a bold figure with impeccable credentials, someone who isn’t afraid to pass judgement on a former prime minister for misappropriation of funds.

He found Najib guilty on seven charges relating to RM42mil in funds belonging to SRC International on July 28, 2020, and sentenced him to a 12-year jail term and a RM210mil fine.

This is the same judge, an Oxford University graduate, who ruled that vernacular schools have long been recognised in the legislative framework of the education system, even before Merdeka and the existence of a Federal Constitution.

Last December, Mohd Nazlan ruled that the existence and establishment of these schools and the use of Chinese and Tamil languages in schools were Constitutional.

Certainly, in highly politicised Malaysia, his judgements would have also earned him many critics, if not enemies.

Last week, the MACC responded to the criticisms, saying it has the authority to probe any public official, including judges.

It pointed out that it had investigated other judges in the past, too, with its investigation papers sent to the Attorney-General’s Chambers, as was the norm.

The revelation by the MACC is that three reports were filed on Mohd Nazlan on March 15 as well as April 23 and 27. So the probe wasn’t merely initiated by a comment by controversial blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin, who lives in England.

In all fairness, once a report is lodged, no matter how popular the implicated person is, the MACC is duty-bound to investigate, with no exemptions.

If the MACC chooses not to investigate a report, then it sets a dangerous precedent. Once it has completed a case, the findings are submitted to the AG’s Chambers, and that’s the process.

Many see the corporate-lawyer-turned-judge Mohd Nazlan as a bold figure with impeccable credentials. – MOHD SAHAR MISNI/The StarMany see the corporate-lawyer-turned-judge Mohd Nazlan as a bold figure with impeccable credentials. – MOHD SAHAR MISNI/The Star

If there’s no case, then it should quickly make a conclusion and clear Mohd Nazlan, to ensure there is no lingering doubt about his integrity and credibility.

There has been the accusation of an “unexplained RM1mil” in his bank account.

How this information is derived and obtained is itself an infringement of the banking laws on privacy. And how does one conclude that this has been an “unexplained sum” since this would be the Inland Revenue Board’s job, and perhaps the MACC’s now.

There have also been allegations and presumptions on the conflict of interest involving Mohd Nazlan in the SRC case he presided over when he was a Maybank general counsel.

With three reports to his name now, hopefully, the investigators will verify the accuracy and reliability of the information they obtained.

Were the reports made from hearsay or from a blog post, or from solid evidence they obtained from credible whistle blowers? After all, these are terrible accusations that have tarnished the judge’s image.

It would surprise us if Mohd Nazlan – who just received the title of Datuk Paduka Mahkota Selangor from Selangor Ruler Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah in February in recognition of his work – doesn’t have a substantial amount in his bank accounts having worked as a senior lawyer.

He had specialised in corporate, conveyancing and banking laws, worked as Maybank’s group general counsel and was then promoted to the board as independent and non-executive director.

His move to the Bench was in 2015 when he was made Judicial Commissioner and eventually became a Court of Appeal judge in 2022.

Given the gravity of the accusations, it’s better for the MACC to reveal their findings, no matter how unpopular they may be. However, let’s not forget that it’s also an offence to make false reports.

It has become fashionable for individuals or groups with political links to make police reports, sometimes with malicious intent.

Complainants of false reports are liable to be prosecuted under Sections 177, 182 or 203 of the Penal Code. A person who lodges a false police report, if charged, may face imprisonment or a fine of RM2,000, or both.

The MACC provision also allows for action against any complainant making a report “which is false or intended to mislead, etc., to an officer of the Commission or the Public Prosecutor”. It can result in a fine not exceeding RM100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or both.

These are tough laws. We expect our judges to be “whiter than white” to ensure the integrity of the judiciary. However, when their reputation is deliberately tarnished for political reasons, then those who are responsible must face the consequences of their mercenary actions.

The perception now is that Mohd Nazlan is being intimidated for his decisions, and for sure the majority of Malaysians, won’t accept it if the judiciary is being threatened, rightly or wrongly.

Innocent until proven guilty: The principle of the law is simple, all accused are guaranteed legal representation by the Federal Constitution. – 123rf.com

THE comment by Perlis Mufti Datuk Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin about it being sinful for a lawyer to defend people who are known to have committed offences, has raised many eyebrows. In fact, that action is hair-raising.

It’s disturbing for many Malaysians, especially for those who perceive an increasing tide of such radical religious interpretations in our country.

Asri went further by saying that the sin of taking money from offenders is worse than income from prostitution.

According to a news report last week, he explained himself to several lawyers on their career path if they chose to be defence counsels to alleged offenders.

Asri’s comments rightly earned a rebuke from Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Parliament and Law) Datuk Seri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar, who issued a reminder on the principle that a person is “innocent until proven guilty,” adding that lawyers had no power to declare whether a person was guilty or innocent.

The principle of the law is simple: an accused – including a cleric – is guaranteed legal representation by the Constitution.

In February, celebrity preacher Ebit Lew was slapped with 11 charges of sexual harassment at an interior court in Sabah.

The 37-year-old, who was charged under Section 509 of the Penal Code, pleaded not guilty to all charges. If convicted, he could face up to five years in jail or a fine, or both.

Ilmami Ahmad, who appeared for the prosecution, was assisted by deputy public prosecutor Azreen Yas Mohamad Ramli, while Ebit was represented by Zairi Zainal Abidin.

Ebit may have been charged, but he is innocent until proven guilty, and even then, he is eligible to many stages of appeal in the higher court.

Going by Asri’s logic, Ebit would have been denied his right to legal representation, unless Asri meant a consistent criminal. But even then, it doesn’t mean the serial offender is responsible for every crime, unless proven otherwise, of course.

Asri himself has reportedly faced defamation suits, and he surely must have sought the advice of his lawyers. That would surely be the sensible thing to do.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution. That aside, imagine the consequences if no lawyers are provided for defences, according to Asri’s warped logic. There would be no trials and with no trials, conviction would be impossible unless the accused pleads guilty from the outset.

Then, there are the questions of insanity, diminished capacity, duress, mistake, infancy and entrapment, which may be the defence’s arguments, or in the worst case, mitigating factors. However, only trained defence lawyers can handle such cases competently.

Wan Junaidi dismissed Asri’s remarks, saying, if receiving payment and legal fees was sinful, then no Muslims would want to become lawyers. I’m sure there are many Muslim lawyers who would dismiss Asri’s “revelation”.

If I may humbly add, thank God Malaysia has a proper legal system that’s mainly based on the common law legal system. The supreme law of the country and the Federal Constitution set out the legal framework and rights of every citizen.

The country provides for a unique dual justice system – the secular laws for criminal and civil cases and syariah laws for Muslims, particularly on family and religious matters.

Asri’s position on legal fees is hard to fathom. Surely, as professionals, lawyers are expected to be paid for their services unless they do it on a pro bono basis.

To equate legal fees with prostitution is simply uncalled for, no matter how one puts it, especially in a religious argument.

Surely, Asri can’t expect Muslim lawyers to now seek his advice if they wish to take on cases involving clients who may be found guilty later or have a record of offences.

Have we come to a point where clerics like Asri have also become a reference point for legal matters or for lawyers who are unsure or uncomfortable about such cases?

Even in corporate and civil cases, there would be clients deemed powerful with all the resources at their disposal acting against the common man, for example, a bank repossessing a low-cost home of people who can’t service their loans.

Does Asri also equate the lawyer representing the bank to a prostitute, when essentially, his client is doing what is procedurally correct, as mutually agreed, by the bank and borrower in the agreement even if it looks heartless?

Clerics, regardless of their faith, are powerful and influential, but they need to be checked and reminded if they’re wrong, like everyone else, regardless of their position because they are mere mortals, not God.