Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Immigrants and Emigrants - Facts and Figures

   
   
       
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,399

    Immigrants and Emigrants - Facts and Figures

    The Star reported HERE. today that more than 25,000 Malaysian citizenship applications have been processed by the National Registration Department over the last three years, following efforts by the Government to expedite the matter.



    Note the following facts and figures from that report:

    1. Deputy Home Minister Datuk Wira Abu Seman Yusop said a total of 29,667 applications have been submitted to the department since 2007, and of these, some 4,000 were pending a decision.

    He said that the department has set a benchmark of settling the remaining 4,000 applications by the end of this year.

    2, He said a special task force set up by ministry, comprising 60 officers, helped resolved a backlog of 32,927 applications from 1997 to 2006.

    3. Some 15,000 applications were received by the department as of October this year, which will be processed by 2011, he added.

    To sum up:

    1997 to 2006 (ten years inclusive) : a backlog of 32 927 applications

    2007 to 2010 : 29, 667 applications in three years

    2010 (as of October 2010) : 15 000 applications

    4. Abu Seman said there was an increase in the number of citizenship applications in recent years, mainly from those from neighbouring countries, due to Malaysia's stability and economic growth.

    Is it realistic to make such a statement? What he said does not seem to jell with the following facts and figures from The Malaysian Insider HERE :


    1. About 700,000 Malaysians are currently living abroad, with half of them in Singapore, while the rest can be found mostly in Australia, Britain and the United States.

    2. An Australian immigration agency in Perth with offices in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor has reportedly said that the number of Malaysians enquiring about moving to Australia had spiked by 80 per cent since 2008.

    3. Many Malaysians living abroad, however, have reportedly cited racial tension and affirmative action policies among their concerns about returning to their homeland.

    If that is the case, why would 15 000 people from neighbouring countries want to apply to be a Malaysian citizen when:

    a) there is reluctance to change some affirmative action policies to enable meritocracy to lure the diaspora to return

    b) About 80 per cent of the country’s workforce has only secondary school education thereby leading to the lack of skilled labour in Malaysia which deters more high-technology industries from coming to Malaysia.

    c) London School of Economics and Political Science economics professor Danny Quah had pointed out that brain drain has had a huge impact on Malaysia’s economic and industrial development for the past decade or longer.

    d) Malaysia’s growth rate dropped to an average of 5.5 per cent a year from 2000 to 2008, from an average of about 9 per cent a year from 1991 to 1997.

    e) The country is also facing uncertain economic prospects with average GDP growth in the next five years projected to be just shy of the six per cent target Najib had set.

    f) Foreign direct investment plunged a record 81 per cent last year and the World Bank has warned that a lack of human capital is a “critical constraint in Malaysia’s ambition to become a high-income economy.”

    g) The number of Malaysian migrants rose by more than 100-fold in a 45-year period, from 9,576 Malaysians in 1960 to 1,489,168 Malaysians in 2005, according to the World Bank.

    h) Malaysian migrants with tertiary education living in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, numbered at 102,321 in the year 2000.

    i) Deputy Foreign Minister Senator A. Kohilan Pillay said recently that 304,358 Malaysians had migrated from March 2008 till August 2009 compared with 139,696 Malaysians in 2007.

    That is an increase of 217.87%!!!

    If the outlook is really rosy, why would 304, 358 Malaysians have migrated from March '08 till August '09?

    Why would those 15 000 people apply on the basis of Malaysia's stability and economic growth which are being questioned by MANY quarters?

    So something does not sound right, does it? The pieces of the puzzle just do not fall into place at all!
    ____________________________
    Updated @ 12.05 am, October 6th

    I did more sleuthing and discovered a few interesting facts:

    Look at the birth rate of Malaysia as taken from THIS LINK.


    Check out the death rate of Malaysia AT THIS LINK.


    The population growth rate of Malaysia can be seen HERE


    Net migration rate is available for 178 countries at THIS LINK but not for Malaysia. Mind you - the source of information is the CIA World Factbook.
    .
    THIS SITE confirms that net migration rate for Malaysia is NOT AVAILABLE.

    Why?

    Strangely, this site shows that the population trend in Malaysia in on an increasing trend and is slightly over 27 million in 2008.

    Compare this chart with the tables in the earlier links. Judge for yourself. I am sure the statistics are available but how come the net migration rate is unavailable and who come the population pattern is on the increase in the light of the statistics for birth rate, death rate and the absence of net migration rate for the country?

    Just who are leaving and WHO ARE COMING IN? Can someone kindly explain the demographic pattern??

    Check out the statistics shown .
    AT THIS SITE which is the Department of Statistics of Malaysia which tells us that the population of Malaysia in 2010 is 28.25 whilst it was 27.9 in 2009. .
    py

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,399

    Emigration: Najib's 15%

    Najib's 15% Author: resident.wangsamaju | Posted at: Friday, April 22, 2011 | Filed Under: Economy, Human rights, migration, Racism, Resident.WangsaMaju

    'Professionals' are doctors, lawyers, accountants and other persons who undergo specialized training, usually belonging to an association which governs the quality of the vocation they practice. They are often regarded as highly educated and known as the 'white-collared' people. According to the Ministry of Human Resources (MHR) and Department of Statistics there were 67,310 job vacancies in the year 2010 with regards to the 'professional' category. If you think this number is not too big, think again. In 2004 there were only 5,187 registered vacancies. This makes it a 1300% increase from the years 2004 to 2010.



    The trend is somewhat similar for technicians and associate professional vacancies registered with the MHR:



    Kindly note assumptions number 1 to 3 at the bottom of this article whereby it is stated that private firms are not required to register unfilled positions with the MHR. It is correct to say this because private firms will normally recruit job positions on their own and not go through any government-linked agencies. Hence the actual number of unfilled positions in the Malaysian job market is higher than the MHR published statistics discussed here.

    If we look at the snapshot of 2010 registered unfilled jobs, 'elementary occupations' hits the top spot. Such jobs are related to 'pekerjaan asas' such as maids, general workers, laborers and so on.



    Zooming in on 'elementary occupations' the run chart below shows a steep climb from the years 2004 to 2010, a growth exceeding 13000% (10 times more that professionals) - caused by an acute shortage of workers in this category.



    However the situation could have been worse. According to Tuan Haji Sabri, Deputy Director General of the Labor Department, in 2010, there were 785,000 Malaysians migrating out of the country and 1.8 million migrants into Malaysia. The 1.8 million migrants into Malaysia caught my eye because it appears that these migrants helped a little in easing the general worker shortage situation- the graph above could have been steeper. The breakdown of the 1.8 million in 2010 is as follows:



    On the 785,000 Malaysians who migrated out of Malaysia, my take is that they are mostly professionals or semi-professionals who have gone out of this country. I do not have enough statistical evidence to show this (not my fault because I rely on published statistics only and I don't know why the Government has stopped releasing demographics like these since the year 2005) but being a professional myself who is in touch with the Asian region I am very confident that I am correct in saying that most the 785,000 migrants last year belonged to such a group and their reasons for migrating are push factors rather than pull factors. For me personally, it is a pain living in this country- the daily racism, the fear of political prosecution, the lack of religion freedom and so on.

    Proponents of Ketuanan Melayu may ask me to leave this country on the next flight but they are ignorant of the fact that if hundreds of thousands of professionals like me leave Malaysia in this continuous trend within the next few years Vision2020 will never be achieved by 2020 and we will never ever be a developed country like we should be because of the lack of human capital.

    I doubt Najib's 15% tax rate plus a couple of tax-free locally assembled cars through the Returning Experts Programme will do much to convince any professional who have made inroads in a foreign country to return home. For them the reasons of leaving the country is much more fundamental than lower tax rates and lower-priced cars (anyway, the pricing will never beat the prices and specs of cars sold in foreign countries). Najib needs to summon enough political will and balls to do the changes that needs to be done in Malaysia only then will people start coming back, tax breaks or not.

    All sources of data are published figures from Bank Negara; Department of Labor, Department of Statistics and Ministry of Human Resources.


    Assumptions on labor market statistics:

    1. As at end-period. Data is not comparable with past series. With effect from May 2005, the registration period during which jobseekers are deemed to be actively seeking jobs using the Electronic Labour Exchange was lengthened to six months (three months previously)

    2. The number of job vacancies could have been under-reported as it is not compulsory for firms to report vacancies to the Labour Department.

    3. Includes public administration and defence, compulsory social security, education, health and social work, other community, social and personal service activities, private household with employed person, ex-territorial organisation and bodies.
    py

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,399
    NEP, brain drain holding back Malaysia, says World Bank

    April 28, 2011

    KUALA LUMPUR — More than one million Malaysians live abroad, the World Bank said today, adding that policies favouring Malays are holding back the economy, causing a brain drain and limiting foreign investment.

    In a Bloomberg news service report today, World Bank senior economist Philip Schellekens was also quoted as saying that foreign investment could be five times the current levels if the country had Singapore’s talent base.

    “Migration is very much an ethnic phenomenon in Malaysia, mostly Chinese but also Indian,” Schellekens (picture) told Bloomberg in Kuala Lumpur on Tuesday ahead of the report’s release today.

    Governance issues and lack of meritocracy are “fundamental constraints” to Malaysia’s expansion because “competition is what drives innovation,” he said.

    Malaysia’s growth fell to an average 4.6 per cent a year in the past decade, from 7.2 per cent the previous period.

    Singapore, which quit Malaysia in 1965, expanded 5.7 per cent in the past decade and has attracted more than half of its neighbour’s overseas citizens, according to the World Bank.

    Malaysia has in recent years unveiled plans to improve skills and attract higher value-added industries.

    The World Bank conducted an online survey in February of 200 Malaysians living abroad in conjunction with the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

    They cited better career prospects, social injustice and higher wages as their main reasons for leaving, the Washington-based lender said in the Bloomberg report.

    Singapore has absorbed 57 per cent of Malaysia’s overseas citizens, with almost 90 per cent of those crossing the border ethnic Chinese, the World Bank said.

    “If Malaysia has the investment environment of Singapore and also had the innovation and skills environment of Singapore, then foreign direct investment inflows into Malaysia could be about five times larger,” Schellekens said in the Bloomberg report.

    “They need to boost productivity and strengthen inclusiveness.”

    Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has pledged to roll back the country’s NEP-style policies but he also told the Umno assembly last year that the government’s social contract of providing benefits to Bumiputeras cannot be repealed.

    According to the Bloomberg report, Najib has eased some rules to woo funds, including scrapping a requirement that foreign companies investing in Malaysia and locally listed businesses set aside 30 per cent of their Malaysian equity for indigenous investors. Last year, he unveiled an economic transformation programme under which the government identified US$444 billion (RM1.3 trillion) of projects from mass rail transit to nuclear power that it would promote in the current decade.

    “If everything is implemented as they say, Malaysia is going to be a star economy,” Schellekens told Bloomberg. “The problem is implementation.”

    .............................

    Social injustice main cause of country’s brain drain, says World Bank

    By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani
    April 28, 2011

    KUALA LUMPUR, April 28 — Social injustice is one of the top three reasons behind the country’s brain drain, the World Bank said today, adding that Malaysians are only willing to return if the government shifts from race-based to needs-based affirmative action policies.

    The World Bank conducted an online survey in February of 200 Malaysians living abroad in conjunction with the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

    In its fourth issue of the Malaysia Economic Monitor, the report stated that 60 per cent of the respondents found that social injustice as their main concern to migrate or return-migrate, citing unequal access to scholarships and higher education especially among the younger generation within the non-Bumiputera community.

    Of those surveyed, 66 per cent found that lack of career prospects was a major factor and 54 per cent agreed that unattractive salaries as underlying factors in the Malaysian diaspora.

    The report also showed that a large number of the diaspora migrated to Singapore, resulting in Malaysian-born individuals contributing to a quarter of the island nation’s population in 2010.

    According to a census conducted in Singapore last year, there are currently 385,979 Malaysians-born residents comprising 47 per cent of all skilled foreign labour in the country.

    The number of ethnic Chinese among Malaysian migrants in Singapore has also jumped from 85 per cent in 2000 to 88 per cent in 2010.

    The World Bank also said that a large number of Malaysians obtained their tertiary education overseas, pointing out that those emigrating are getting younger as more of those below 23 are leaving the country.

    The report concluded that the “Malaysian diaspora is large and expanding, as well as geographically concentrated and ethnically skewed.”

    In a Bloomberg news service report earlier today, World Bank senior economist Philip Schellekens was quoted as saying that foreign investment could be five times the current levels if the country had Singapore’s talent base.

    “Migration is very much an ethnic phenomenon in Malaysia, mostly Chinese but also Indian,” Schellekens told Bloomberg in Kuala Lumpur on Tuesday ahead of the report’s release today.

    Governance issues and lack of meritocracy are “fundamental constraints” to Malaysia’s expansion because “competition is what drives innovation,” he said.

    Malaysia’s growth fell to an average 4.6 per cent a year in the past decade, from 7.2 per cent the previous period.

    Singapore, which quit Malaysia in 1965, expanded 5.7 per cent in the past decade and has attracted more than half of its neighbour’s overseas citizens, according to the World Bank.

    Malaysia has in recent years unveiled plans to improve skills and attract higher value-added industries.

    Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has pledged to roll back the country’s NEP-style policies but he also told the Umno assembly last year that the government’s social contract of providing benefits to Bumiputeras cannot be repealed.

    According to the Bloomberg report, Najib has eased some rules to woo funds, including scrapping a requirement that foreign companies investing in Malaysia and locally-listed businesses set aside 30 per cent of their Malaysian equity for indigenous investors.

    Last year, he unveiled an economic transformation programme under which the government identified US$444 billion (RM1.3 trillion) of projects from mass rail transit to nuclear power that it would promote in the current decade.
    py

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,399
    Ptui! British-trained economist. RM 25B left the country and he is so proud that 9B FDI came in.

    Brain drain has not led to fall in FDI, says Najib

    By Yow Hong Chieh
    April 29, 2011


    Najib acknowledged that the exodus of skilled Malaysians to Singapore and other advanced countries was a problem. — File picKUALA LUMPUR, April 29 — The prime minister has refuted a recent World Bank report that Malaysia’s brain drain had led to a drop in foreign investment, pointing out that there was a six-fold rise in capital inflows last year compared to 2009.


    Datuk Seri Najib Razak said foreign direct investment (FDI) had increased from RM1.4 billion in 2009 to RM9 billion in 2010 and expressed confidence that Malaysia will be able to secure more such investments in future.

    He also said his administration was actively pursuing domestic direct investment (DDI) as nearly three-quarters of all private funding for the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) will come from local investors by 2020.

    “Don’t forget, it is not all about FDI but also about domestic investment. Seventy-three per cent of our plan involves domestic investment,” he told reporters in Putrajaya today.

    The World Bank said, in its “Malaysia Economic Monitor: Brain Drain” report released yesterday, that foreign investment could be five times current levels if Malaysia had Singapore’s talent base.

    Singapore has absorbed 57 per cent of Malaysia’s one million overseas citizens, with almost 90 per cent of those crossing the Causeway ethnic Chinese, the report said.

    Najib acknowledged today that the exodus of skilled Malaysians to Singapore and other advanced countries was a problem that “must be resolved” through initiatives speadheaded by Talent Corp.

    Talent Corp was set up by the government earlier this year to lure and retain much-needed professionals in the face of increasing global competition for talent.

    Najib announced on April 12 that Malaysian professionals working abroad who return to Malaysia would only have to pay a 15 per cent flat income tax for five years under the Returning Experts Programme (ERP).

    “This is one of the main initiatives, and there are other initiatives which have been agreed upon and we will take subsequent measures,” he told reporters

    The World Bank has identified governance issues and lack of meritocracy as “fundamental constraints” that block Malaysia’s expansion by fettering competition and innovation.

    Malaysia’s growth fell to an average 4.6 per cent a year in the past decade, from 7.2 per cent the previous period.

    Singapore, which quit Malaysia in 1965, expanded 5.7 per cent in the past decade and has attracted more than half of its neighbour’s overseas citizens.

    Malaysia has in recent years unveiled plans to improve skills and attract higher value-added industries.

    Najib has pledged to roll back the New Economic Policy’s (NEP) affirmative action policies but also told the Umno assembly last year that the government’s social contract to provide benefits to Bumiputeras cannot be repealed.

    The prime minister has eased some rules to woo funds, including scrapping a requirement that foreign companies investing in Malaysia and locally-listed businesses set aside 30 per cent of their Malaysian equity for Bumiputera investors.

    Last year, Najib unveiled the ETP under which the government has identified projects from mass rail transit to nuclear power worth US$444 billion (RM1.3 trillion) that his administration will promote in the next 10 years.
    py

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,399
    A snapshot of Malaysia’s talent outflow


    By Lee Wei Lian May 02, 2011



    KUALA LUMPUR, May 2 — The World Bank’s report on the country’s brain drain released last Thursday showed that the number of Malaysians with tertiary education who moved abroad tripled in the last two decades.

    Two out of every 10 Malaysians with a tertiary education opted for either OECD countries or Singapore.

    As of 2010, the report estimated the Malaysian diaspora at about one million, of whom one-third were tertiary educated.

    It was noted, however, that the estimated size of the Malaysian diaspora is a conservative one due to the lack of information on the breakdown of the non-resident population of Singapore which could possibly have a high percentage of Malaysians.

    The talent outflow threatens to erode the country’s skills base and derail its ambition to be a developed high-income nation by 2020, more so as the loss of the nation’s “best and brightest” was not being replaced with talent inflow.

    The number of expatriates in Peninsular Malaysia fell by about one-quarter between 2004 and 2010, with all the major source countries but two registering declines and in the case of advanced countries, double-digit contractions.

    The exceptions were Bangladesh and Iran which registered a stunning growth in expatriates of 234 and 194 per cent respectively. The two countries now constitute nearly one-tenth of the expatriate community in Peninsular Malaysia.


    The report had a survey which posed the question “I intend to return to Malaysia for good at some point in my life” to overseas Malaysians, and 65 of 149 had responded “Not sure” while 32 responded “Agree”, 13 responded “Strongly Agree”, 22 said they “Strongly Disagree” and 17 said they “Disagree”.

    As part of the survey, overseas Malaysians were asked what policy initiatives could possibly entice migrants to return.

    The top picks were a change in the country’s race-based policies and fundamental reforms in the public sector with “Paradigm shift away from race-based towards needs-based affirmative action” and “Evidence of fundamental and positive change in the government/public sector” receiving 87 and 82 per cent positive responses respectively.

    The rate of talent migration grew at a rate of 4.2 per cent between 2000 and 2010, with Singapore having the most number of Malaysian tertiary-level graduates at 121,662, followed by Australia at 51,556 and the US with 34,045.

    The charts in this article offer a look at the numbers in the report: “Malaysia Economic Monitor: Brain Drain”.







    py

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,399
    Brilliant essay by Shawn Tan.

    The migrant’s eye — Shaun Tan

    May 05, 2011

    MAY 5 — Below is the entry by Shaun Tan, one of the finalists in the World Bank 2011 Essay Competition, on the brain drain issue.

    “Our young people represent the future of our country.” This phrase has been echoed by almost every politician in almost every country in modern history. However the changes instigated by the increasing ease of migration are such that not even this time-honoured cliché holds the weight it once did. Young people still represent the future, but it is the future of whichever country they decide to settle in or impact, which may or may not be their country of origin. As with most changes, there are new benefits and drawbacks, and new winners and losers. Among the most pressing questions countries now face are how to prevent their young people from migrating, and how far they should go in providing for the migrants residing within their borders.

    Exodus

    Smart Indians go to med school,

    Smart Chinese go to investment banks,

    Smart Malaysians go to Singapore.

    — Anonymous
    My first brush with migration was in 2002. My father came home one day in a state of great excitement. My father is an excitable guy. He is also an alumnus of a university in New Zealand, and he had just learned that, because of this, our family was entitled to permanent residency (PR) status in New Zealand upon fulfilment of a few (relatively minor) requirements. One of the requirements was that we reside in New Zealand for at least three months over the next two years. We discussed it and decided it might be fun. We packed for summer.

    Within a few weeks I was bored. New Zealand was charming enough in its own way, but it didn’t have the vibrancy of my home city of Kuala Lumpur, and I couldn’t imagine us choosing to live in this land of sheep and five o’clock closing times instead. And yet I understood why my father pushed for PR status so eagerly. He remembered the Indonesian racial riots of 1998, and he kept the pulse of rising extremism in Malaysia. If violence ever broke out in Malaysia my family would have a back door, a way out.

    Later on I saw that most of my Malaysian friends who could afford it went abroad for at least part of their education. Some went to boarding schools in Singapore, Australia, and the UK. When it came to university, almost all my Malaysian friends went to Australia, the UK or the US. The reasons they (and their parents) gave for wanting a foreign education were the same: the racial quotas in Malaysian universities, the skewed syllabi, the controls on free expression, the low standard of the Malaysian education system (apart from a few private university colleges), and the relative quality and prestige of foreign schools and universities.

    At university this trend continues. Many of my Malaysian friends plan to remain overseas after graduation, or to work in Singapore. “Everything in Malaysia is on such a small scale,” one of them said, “it can’t compare with the training you get overseas.” Some of them hope to return to Malaysia later, but only in the distant future, after earning enough money and establishing themselves in their industries. I know the power of inertia, and every year that goes by makes it less and less likely that they will return.

    Asian societies have very tight family bonds. Most of my friends have parents who miss them very much, and who dislike them living far away. However, far from meeting with parental opposition, these plans have full approval: the message my Malaysian friends get from their parents and relatives is: “Don’t come home.”

    No Brain, No Gain

    Malaysia faces a brain drain crisis. Recent decades have seen the migration of many ethnic Chinese (comprising 26 per cent of Malaysia’s population) [1] and Indians (8 per cent) [2], as well as considerable numbers of Malays, the majority ethnic group (53 per cent) [3]. Shamsuddin Bardan, executive director of the Malaysian Employers Federation, reported that there are 785,000 Malaysians working overseas. [4] Unofficially, the figure is thought to be over a million. [5] According to the World Bank, the number of Malaysian emigrants has increased almost a hundred-fold in the past 50 years, from 9,576 in 1960, to almost 1.5 million in 2005. [6] A parliamentary report revealed that 140,000 Malaysians emigrated in 2007. [7] According to Deputy Foreign Minister Kohilan Pillay, the figure between 2008 and 2009 was 304,000. [8] As of 2007, 106,000 Malaysians had renounced their citizenship. [9]

    Many of these Malaysians go to Australia, the UK, and the US. [10] About half of them go to Singapore, [11] which has a GDP per capita almost four times larger than Malaysia’s [12]. The portion of the Malaysians who return is minimal (Prime Minister Najib Razak reported the figure to be less than 1 per cent) [13] prompting former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad to suggest that other countries should pay Malaysia for having seduced them to stay “since by right, the graduates’ training and knowledge should be called intellectual property.” [14]. Prominent writer Mariam Mokhtar outlines the reasons given by emigrants: “improved employment and business prospects, higher salaries, better working environments, greater chances of promotion and a relatively superior quality of life.” [15]

    This has severely retarded Malaysia’s development. Malaysia continues to be the poor cousin of the Asian Tigers — Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. Malaysia’s growth rate dropped from 9 per cent a year, from 1991 to 1997, to 5.5 per cent a year, from 2000 to 2008. [16] Stewart Forbes, the executive director of the Malaysian International Chamber of Commerce and Industry, explained that many of Malaysia’s lost investment opportunities stem from the brain drain — because international companies had trouble finding skilled employees in Malaysia. [17] “People have left, growth prospects have dimmed, and then more people continue to leave,” [18] said Danny Quah, an economics professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and Council Member on Malaysia’s National Economic Advisory Council. “It’s a vicious cycle that the economy has had to confront for the last decade or longer.” [19] The increasing ease of migration has produced new winners — countries like Singapore, Australia, the UK and the US, who get to cherry-pick from a global talent pool. It has also produced new losers. Malaysia is certainly one of them.

    The Malaysian Dilemma

    As there are new winners and losers from migration, so too are there new benefits and drawbacks. A classroom discussion threw this debate into stark relief.

    It was last year. The date was the September 27, the country was America, and I was in my International Relations class. We were discussing globalisation, and having gone through some of its benefits, we moved on to its drawbacks.

    “Well,” said one of my classmates, “one drawback is that it increases the brain drain effect and leads to greater inequality between countries. Developing countries lose a lot of the talent that they badly need.” This received a general nodding of assent.

    I raised my hand. “Actually,” I asked, “is greater inequality necessarily a bad thing?”

    My class, accustomed by now to my mannerisms, still looked at me strangely.

    “I mean, it’s true that many developing countries end up losing their talent, but really, some of these countries bloody well deserve to lose them.”

    This created a small firestorm. From my classmates’ reactions you’d have thought I’d asked what was wrong with genocide. There were gasps. Before I could finish, a forest of hands shot up to respond. One of my classmates burst out angrily; “Now you’re just being facetious!”

    My professor moved to restore order. He was a kindly old man who usually let our discussions run their course. He did however step in whenever our discussions threatened to turn into a pseudo-intellectual brawl.

    He turned to me. “I assume you said that to be deliberately provocative,” he said gently; a teacher reasoning with a difficult student.

    “No,” I said, “not at all.”

    I looked at the rest of my class who now whispered amongst themselves and eyed me warily, apparently taken aback to see their (I hope) usually charming and amiable classmate say such callous things.

    But to me my statement seemed as normal as breathing. And said to any reasonably informed Malaysians, it wouldn’t even have raised an eyebrow. I realised then that there were perspectives on this issue that are unique to Malaysians, and to those who have experienced similar circumstances.

    Push and Pull

    I’ve left a few unanswered questions over the course of this essay. Like why do loving parents tell their children not to come home? And why do many Malaysians think Malaysia deserves to lose its talented young people? Now at last is the time to answer them.

    Malaysia has a lot going for it. It has much untapped potential. It is devoid of natural disasters and rich in natural resources. It is a country with warm weather, amazing food and hot women. Its people are generally warm, friendly, and (with certain exceptions like yours truly) humble. Pull-factors like these would require considerable push-factors to trigger mass emigration.

    But there’s a darker side. A side behind the strained tranquillity and Malaysia Truly Asia adverts. Since its independence in 1957, Malaysia has been run by the Barisan National (BN) party, and its regime is an autocracy that institutionalises racism. Non-Malays, including the ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities, are discriminated against in favour of the majority Malays, whose support BN depends on. Malaysian laws make non-Malays pay higher prices for certain goods and services, allocate them only a small percentage of places in public universities, and impose significant barriers against their advancement in the military, police force, civil service, and in government-owned companies. The BN government persecutes minority religions, and major Malay politicians often refer to Chinese and Indian Malaysians as pendatang (immigrants), of inferior status, while the current Prime Minister Najib Razak is alleged to have threatened to “bathe a keris dagger with Chinese blood”.

    The BN government is also very protectionist, making it even more difficult for international companies to set up business there, for example, international law firms can only operate in Malaysia by acting in partnership with a local firm. Furthermore, the BN government is both grossly incompetent and highly corrupt. Billions of dollars in public funds are squandered on cronyism [20] and ill-conceived mega-projects [21], instead of being properly used to develop the country. The judiciary is largely comprised of underqualified yes-men, the police force is unreliable, and the public schools and universities are of low standard, such that even Malaysia’s top university, University Malaya, has dropped out of the top 200 universities in the world on all major rankings. [22]

    This is why loving parents tell their children not to come home. They don’t want their children to live as second-class citizens in Malaysia, where their ambitions will be limited by institutional inefficiency, where they will be passed over for promotion in favour of others, not for any lack of skill, but for the colour of their skin. “Money does have a significant role but the most important factor… is opportunity,” outlined Wan Saiful Wan Jan, founding chief executive member of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs. “Malaysia is too politicised and opportunities are not evenly available to everyone.” [23]

    This is why Malaysians flock to Singapore, not because Singapore’s government is less despotic (it is even more so), but because the Singaporean government at least prizes efficiency, and recognises merit regardless of race. When a Malaysian renounces his citizenship, he doesn’t see it as an unpatriotic betrayal, he sees it as washing his hands off a regime that has marginalised and persecuted him. As one Malaysian, Wan Jon Yew, explained: “I’m not proud of being a Malaysian because I think the government doesn’t treat me as a Malaysian.” [24] Migration is beneficial because it increases efficiency; it allows young Malaysians to move to take their best offers, to move to where their ability is truly valued. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and migration helps to reduce this wastage.

    Not all Malaysians mass-emigrating are Chinese and Indians. Many Malays are emigrating too. Although they do not face racial persecution, many of their reasons for doing so are the same as those of non-Malays: the corrupt and inefficient system, the lack of security and religious freedom, the quashing of free expression, human rights abuses. Furthermore, Malays face a different form of religious persecution — forced piety by the overzealous Islamic moral police. Non-Muslim Malays and Malay homosexuals are jailed or sent to “re-education centres” [25], and earlier this year 80 Malays were arrested for celebrating Valentine’s Day [26]. In light of this, Malaysia deserves to lose the talents of its young people. It doesn’t appreciate these talents; it punishes its best citizens — those brave enough to stand up for themselves, or those too principled to fake devotion to a religion they don’t believe in — and instead it rewards its worst elements — the religious extremist, the racist, the snivelling sycophant. In a sense, we as Malaysian citizens deserve to lose the benefits those talents would have brought, because through our participation or collective inaction we allow this wretched state of affairs to continue. Migration is beneficial because it allows Malaysians to leave, and to live in a country that accords them the dignity commensurate with their status as a human being.

    The Open Door

    The ability to migrate presents young Malaysians with an open door to the rest of the world. This is not without its drawbacks. Many of the Malaysian émigrés leave not because they are weak or cowardly, but because they are ambitious, or because they are uncompromising — they refused to take orders from those who are their inferiors, or to remain party to a system that is morally indefensible. One cannot help but imagine how much good such spirit could have done if they had no choice but to remain in Malaysia. Not necessarily by engaging in overtly political activities, but by simple apolitical acts — by living their lives in their own way, free from compromise, and refusing to curb their ambitions. As Vaclav Havel explained in his book “The Power of the Powerless”, such simple acts are often the most potent weapons against oppressive regimes. Thus, migration has its drawbacks — it makes it harder for Malaysia to achieve real change because it takes away some of its most spirited people.

    However there are also many young Malaysians who choose to return, and who seek to bring real change to the country. People like Nathaniel Tan — a Harvard graduate, who writes books exposing the abuses of the BN regime, even if his efforts meet with harassment and detention. Or Alea Nasihin — a friend of mine, and a student at Nottingham University, who resolves to return to work as a human rights lawyer. [27] Or myself. For us the open door is comforting. It gives us the courage to say or do things we might otherwise be wary of. Because it reminds us that there are limits to what an oppressive government can do. Because we know that even if our efforts harm our careers in Malaysia, even if the BN government hounds us and bars us from getting a job at any major company in Malaysia, there will always be many other places eager for our talents. It allows us to take more risks and dare greater things. The open door presented by migration therefore simultaneously hinders and helps the process of change in Malaysia.

    Point of Origin

    From a Malaysian perspective, good measures for broadening opportunities for young migrants in their countries of origin are relatively straightforward. The most obvious one is to increase meritocracy, to distinguish merit instead of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. When each citizen is judged solely on the basis of his ability, when high standards are promoted, when the most innovative people are rewarded and encouraged, the whole country progresses and develops, creating greater opportunities for all. Nepotism and cronyism should be prohibited in all industries, so that positions and promotions go to the most able candidates. This policy should be pursued in conjunction with scholarships and financial aid for poor youths to attend schools and universities, again awarded on the basis of merit.

    The other obvious measure is to liberalise. A liberal society that respects human rights provides the broadest opportunities for free expression and the free practice of religion simply because fewer things are prohibited. Laws should be enacted against the interference with an individual’s expression or religious practice, unless he harms or grossly misrepresents another person in doing so. The judiciary should be allowed to become strong and independent, so that everyone has the opportunity for a fair trial.

    Meanwhile, opportunities should be given to migrants who consider returning to their country of origin. Those living overseas, but with vital skills in various fields should be invited back and offered senior positions, with PR status or citizenship offered to their families.

    A fair, liberal government that rewards merit provides the broadest opportunities for its people. Measures like the Malaysian government’s Returning Export and Brain Gain Malaysia programmes fail to attract young people because they make only cosmetic changes, refusing to give effect to the principles of fairness, liberalism, and meritocracy, that are the essence of true improvement of opportunity.

    Destination

    Good measures for broadening opportunities for young migrants in their countries of destination are relatively straightforward too. They largely consist of refraining from the policies these migrants were fleeing from in the first place. Other than some free basic language-training programmes, no special privileges should be given to these immigrants, and no affirmative action policies should be implemented. Instead, these immigrants should be allowed to compete for (generally) the same opportunities as everyone else, judged on the basis of their merit, rather than race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. They should be given equal opportunity to exercise their civil rights, like the rights to free speech, association, and religious practice. Their right to marry should be recognised regardless of sexual orientation, and the continued ban on gay marriage is an instance where the US has fallen short of this standard.

    However governments should be conscious of where granting formal rights in fact restricts opportunities. In “Beyond Liberal Democracy”, Daniel Bell contrasted Western and East Asian approaches to dealing with migrant workers. He described how migrant workers in East Asia are denied citizenship (and thus full legal protection) no matter how long they stay, while those in Western countries are able to obtain it much more easily. The result of this is that East Asian countries are able to officially admit many more temporary contract workers. Comparatively, Western countries can officially admit few migrant workers, although many more work there illegally, without any legal protections at all. “In the West,” Bell explained, “the liberal political culture places higher priority on the justice of legal forms… In East Asia, by contrast, the authorities prefer to enact… laws that allow for large numbers of migrant domestic workers to engage temporarily in legally protected work in their territories.” [28] Governments therefore should not dogmatically pursue form over substance, but should be pragmatic in their measures to achieve the best results for immigrants.

    Ich bin ein Inmigrante

    “Once I thought to write a history of the immigrants in America. Then I discovered that immigrants were America.”

    — Oscar Handlin
    America is not without shortcomings in providing for its immigrants. True equality of opportunity can only be achieved with the shattering of glass ceilings, and there are numerous social barriers that still need to be overcome. To this date, the highest office in the country, that of the President of the United States, can only be held by someone born on American soil. And yet America remains the land of opportunity for so many people. The immigrants in America are integrated far better than those in Europe, because Americans are conscious of the fact that they were all immigrants once. And America has benefited greatly from this. It gets physics from Einstein, political theory from Arendt, movies from Ang Lee, eye-candy from Maggie Q, and literature from Junot Diaz. The fact that Irish-Catholic immigrants like the Kennedys could become America’s most prominent family, that an Austrian immigrant like Arnold Schwarzenegger could become Governor of California, and that a black man born in Hawaii and raised in Indonesia could become President, is a testament to this tradition.

    I am the product of migration. It was through migration that my ancestors from Fujian province in China came to live in Malaysia. It is through migration that I have been able to grow up in Malaysia and study in Britain and America, and it is through migration that I have had the privilege of learning from people from all over the world. My accent is a ******* mix of British, American and Malaysian. My upbringing was a schizophrenic blend of liberalism and Asian Tiger Mom-style parenting. I revel in living in a mixed-up world and having a mixed-up self. [29] I have tried to live consistently with the principles advocated in this essay. Where in my life I have failed I have accepted it and tried to learn from my mistakes. Where I have succeeded, I have taken pride in the knowledge of having done so myself, not needing any legal crutch to prop me up. The only right I have demanded is the right to a fair contest. I think that the right to fair competition is the only thing we can and should expect.

    Footnote:

    1 US Department of State Background Notes: Malaysia —http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2777.htm

    2 Ibid.

    3 Ibid.

    4 Mariam Mokhtar, ‘Malaysia’s Brain Drain’, Asia Sentinel, Feb 2010 —http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.ph...308&Itemid=199

    5 Ibid.

    6 James Chow, ‘Malaysia Countering ‘Brain Drain’ Immigration Conflicts’, The Epoch Times, July 2010 — http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/39453/

    7 Mariam Mokhtar, ‘Malaysia’s Brain Drain’, Asia Sentinel, Feb 2010 —http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.ph...308&Itemid=199

    8 James Chow, ‘Malaysia Countering ‘Brain Drain’ Immigration Conflicts’, The Epoch Times, July 2010 — http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/39453/

    9 V Vasudevan, ‘106,000 give up citizenship’, New Straits Times, Nov 2007 –http://findarticles.com/p/news-artic.../ai_n44378958/

    10 ‘Najib kickstarts bid to reverse brain drain’, The Malaysian Insider, Oct 2010 —http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/m...e-brain-drain/

    11 Ibid.

    12 The CIA World Factbook: Singapore and Malaysia —https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/sn.html

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/my.html

    13 Edwin Yapp, ‘The brain drain issue revisited’, The Malaysian Insider, March 2011 — http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/o...sue-revisited/

    14 Mariam Mokhtar, ‘Malaysia’s Brain Drain’, Asia Sentinel, Feb 2010 —http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.ph...308&Itemid=199

    15 Ibid.

    16 Liz Gooch, ‘Loss of Young Talent Thwarts Malaysia’s Growth’, The New York Times, Oct 2010 — http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/bu...rain.html?_r=1

    17 Ibid.

    18 Ibid.

    19 Ibid.

    20 ‘MACC hauls up Khir Toyo over Mickey Mouse, Bali house’, Sin Chew Daily, Sept 2009 — http://www.mysinchew.com/node/29264

    21 http://www.petronastwintowers.com.my...i?OpenFrameset

    22 Karen Chapman, ‘UM drops from top 200 list of world ranking’, The Star, Sept 2010 —http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp...421&sec=nation

    23 Beh Lih Yi, ‘Malaysia struggles to stem ‘brain drain’’, Agence France Presse, Dec 2010 –http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...9849d18ab8.3f1

    24 Ibid.

    25 Jonathan Kent, ‘Malaysian ‘convert’ claims cruelty’, BBC, July 2007 —http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asiapacific/6278568.stm

    26 ‘Malaysia Valentine’s Day raids lead to mass arrests’, BBC, Feb 2011 —http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12466875

    27 Alea Nasihin, ‘Dilemmas of a young Malaysian abroad’, The Malaysian Insider, Feb 2011 — http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/b...oyarburok.com/

    28 Daniel A Bell, Beyond Liberal Democracy: Political Thinking for an East Asian Context, 2006, p 17 — http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8305.pdf

    29 This phrase comes from Jeremy Waldron, in ‘Minority Cultures and the Cosmopolitan Alternative’, 25 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 751, 1992.

    Bibliography

    Alea Nasihin, ‘Dilemmas of a young Malaysian abroad’, The Malaysian Insider, Feb 2011 — http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/b...oyarburok.com/

    Beh Lih Yi, ‘Malaysia struggles to stem ‘brain drain’’, Agence France Presse, Dec 2010 — http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...9849d18ab8.3f1

    The CIA World Factbook: Singapore and Malaysia —

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/sn.html

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/my.html

    Daniel A Bell, Beyond Liberal Democracy: Political Thinking for an East Asian Context, 2006, p 17 — http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8305.pdf

    Edwin Yapp, ‘The brain drain issue revisited’, The Malaysian Insider, March 2011 —http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/o...sue-revisited/

    http://www.petronastwintowers.com.my...i?OpenFrameset

    James Chow, ‘Malaysia Countering ‘Brain Drain’ Immigration Conflicts’, The Epoch Times, July 2010 — http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/39453/

    Jeremy Waldron, in ‘Minority Cultures and the Cosmopolitan Alternative’, 25 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 751, 1992.

    Jonathan Kent, ‘Malaysian ‘convert’ claims cruelty’, BBC, July 2007 —http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6278568.stm

    Karen Chapman, ‘UM drops from top 200 list of world ranking’, The Star, Sept 2010 — http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp...421&sec=nation

    Liz Gooch, ‘Loss of Young Talent Thwarts Malaysia’s Growth’, The New York Times, Oct 2010 – http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/bu...rain.html?_r=1

    ‘MACC hauls up Khir Toyo over Mickey Mouse, Bali house’, Sin Chew Daily, Sept 2009 — http://www.mysinchew.com/node/29264

    ‘Malaysia Valentine’s Day raids lead to mass arrests’, BBC, Feb 2011 — http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12466875

    Mariam Mokhtar, ‘Malaysia’s Brain Drain’, Asia Sentinel, Feb 2010 —http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.ph...308&Itemid=199

    ‘Najib kickstarts bid to reverse brain drain’, The Malaysian Insider, Oct 2010 —http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/m...sebrain-drain/

    US Department of State Background Notes: Malaysia — http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2777.htm

    V Vasudevan, ‘106,000 give up citizenship’, New Straits Times, Nov 2007 — http://findarticles.com/p/news-artic.../ai_n44378958/

    * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.
    py

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,399

    Economy: Drop in Chinese Population Merely Arithmetic, Nor Yakcob

    Sunday, 31 July 2011 10:43

    Drop in Chinese population 'purely arithmetic', say Nor Yakcop

    Written by Malaysia Chronicle
    font size Print E-mail 9 Comments
    Rate this item1 2 3 4 5 (2 votes)

    PETALING JAYA - The Chinese population in the country has declined by 2% last year from the figure recorded in the 2000 population census.



    However, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop said the report did not necessarily mean there were fewer births.

    The percentage of Chinese might look like it was getting smaller when a census was carried out, but he stressed that this was “purely arithmetic”.

    Even if the growth rate remained the same over the years, the fact that the latest census were compiled against the backdrop of a larger population base might change the proportion, he added.

    “Even if the Chinese are having fewer children, the implication on the figure is only minor,” he said.

    According to the 2010 Population and Housing Census report, the Chinese constitute 24.6% of Malaysia’s 28.3 million population while 67.4% were bumiputra, Indians (7.3%) and others (0.7%).

    In the 2000 population census, the Chinese made up 26% of the country’s 23.27 million population.

    When the census was carried out in 1991, the Chinese community made up 28.1% of the country’s 18.38 million population.

    The nationwide census, which was conducted by the Statistics Department between July 6 and Aug 22 last year, also showed there were 14,562,638 males and 13,771,497 females.

    It was reported in July that the number of Malays in Penang is increasing and they now outnumber the Chinese by 0.7%.

    A total of 670,100 or 41.6% of the estimated 1.6 million Penang population are Malays while 658,700 or 40.9% are Chinese.

    Chinese analysts attributed the de**cline to the community’s preference for small families, marrying late and migration, as well as women professionals opting to remain single.

    Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall president Tan Yew Sing said the declining Chinese population was a natural trend due to urban culture.

    He said more Chinese were moving to the urban areas, where they preferred to raise smaller families.

    “A significant portion of the Chinese community is also known to migrate overseas,” said Tan.



    - The Star
    py

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,399
    Sunday, 07 August 2011 07:56

    Why Malaysians leave and what will bring them back

    Written by Douglas Tan
    font size Print E-mail 56 Comments
    Rate this item1 2 3 4 5 (15 votes)



    Following Dana Kay's article "Brain Drain: The story behind the dwindling Chinese in Malaysia", I believe this applies not just to the Malaysian Chinese population, but Malaysians in general.

    As a parent, there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting the best for your child. Sending them to the best schools, private tuition, sending them for music lessons, taking them for sports coaching and then sending them to overseas universities. The kids grow up to become upstanding members of society, but not in our country. In the US, UK or Australia. When asked about coming back, it is shrugged off as a nonsensical suggestion.

    In June, the MCA shot a question back to the DAP, "What has the DAP done to attract back foreign talent?". That is a good question. As I mentioned before, Talent Corp headed by Dato' Seri Idris Jala is supposed to attract our talented Malaysians abroad to come back home. They are supposed to do so by cutting their income tax by 1% and giving them a discount on their first two cars. I do not know if entering the government makes you more stupid, but surely these are completely nonsensical and trivial issues which Malaysians abroad would pay no attention to.

    So why don't they want to come back? My father helped to shed some light on this issue. Coming back on a flight from England, he met many Malaysians who were returning home to visit their families. They were young, budding professionals slogging it out hard in the UK.

    Not easy, yet they prefer to stay away

    In reality their lives are not as rosy as people make it out to be. Yes they earn £4000 a month, which translated to Malaysian Ringgit is RM20,000 which is a lot of money, but rental is high, groceries are expensive, and the general cost of living is high as well, not to mention tax.

    They walk to work, take public transport everywhere, they don't own a car, they work hard and stay at home on the weekends because it's too expensive to go out. How are they happy with this reality? They confess to my father that actually Malaysia is a great country and they would like to come back, if not for the government.

    This was a rather sweeping statement so my Dad asked for more clarification. They put down several points:

    1. The system isn't fair. They feel that they could work hard in Malaysia, but they would never be treated because race is more important than ability, whether it is in a bumi or non-bumi company.

    2. The potential to grow is not there. Companies which are favoured by the government are molly-coddled which prevents healthy competition from taking place. This stifles the ability of any company to enter the market without an endorsement from the government.

    3. Lack of international confidence. Foreign companies do not see Malaysia as a competitive market place, and they are not confident to invest because of the limited opportunities presented by a biased system.

    4. Judicial incompetence. Our judiciary do whatever the ruling party tells them to do. There is no confidence that the Opposition won't do the same to manipulate the system as BN has done if they go into the government. Reform has to happen and happen quickly.

    5. Widespread corruption. For many, people accept corruption as a part of their lives. For those collecting bribes, it is a part of their income in which to reject it would deprive themselves and their families of the lifestyles they want to enjoy. For the large scale corruption, it is because of favourable government contracts to certain companies and individuals, and political legacies which have benefited from the system to the tune of millions of dollars.

    6. Mentality. In general, people in Malaysia do not seem to be so progressive minded and show a reluctance to modernise. A society should be progressive in order for the country to progress.

    7. Lack of infrastructure. Despite all the mega-projects which is going on, the government seems more interested to build highways rather than workable, functional, affordable public transport systems. Access in Kuala Lumpur equates to a good hour and a half stuck in a traffic jam. The monorail is good, but it really is for tourists. We need to have a proper integrated public transport system.

    8. Rising crime rates. Nothing puts off Malaysians coming home more than stories that crime is on the rise. We can walk around London, Melbourne and New York feeling safe, but the moment we are back in KL, it is all about security guards, possessions under lock-and-key, gated communities and the like. It is atrocious that we feel so unsafe walking around our own country!

    9. Racism. In a modern society, racism has not part in it. In England, it doesn't matter if you are black, white, asian, middle eastern, Indian or Pakistani. If you were born in England, you are English. The same with America and the same with Australia. In Malaysia, we use race prefixes ie. I'm Chinese Malaysian. That technically doesn't make any sense as the proper term would be "Chinese descent". It is the political parties like UMNO, MIC and MCA which have done nothing but elevate the racial argument even further. It's not about who is Malay, Chinese or Indian but the fact we are all Malaysian. Unfortunately, we are lacking this identity because of racial politics. Because of this division, so many are willing to give up their citizenship of Malaysia to become part of a country that will treat them with respect as individuals, not because of the colour of their skin.

    10. Oppression. There is no freedom to fight for what you think is right because it is in violation of national security. National security is defined as according to what the Barisan Nasional government wants, which ultimately translates to whatever is best for the party. We cannot trust their ability to manipulate elections, redraw constituencies requiring opposition MPs to have 70,000 votes to win while the BN MP only needs 5,000. Criticizing your government should be your right and duty of being a citizen, but instead we are told to sit down and shut up like little kids.

    These are just a couple of points, but the list probably could go on. The BN government has to realise that dangling carrots in front of the Malaysians abroad will not bring them home. So just to answer the MCA, the DAP is doing a lot more than the MCA has ever done for this country. If the MCA want to take the myopic point of view that scholarships would garner loyalty, that would just lead to their own demise.

    The DAP and our Pakatan Rakyat partners wants a Competent, Accountable and Transparent government, an overhaul of the judicial system, stamping out graft and corruption and a cleaner and safer Malaysia. The DAP is setting an example in Penang, and the results are there for all to see. Once the system has changed, we wouldn't have to worry about Malaysians abroad coming home. They would come back anyway.

    - Douglas Tan is a DAP member and reader of Malaysia Chronicle
    py

Visitors found this page by searching for:

illegal immigrants in malaysia statistic

malaysia immigration statistics

malaysia emigration statistics

illegal immigrants statistics in malaysia

immigration statistics malaysia

statistic of brain drain in malaysiabrain drain statistics 2010statistics chart of brain drain countries 2012 malaysiamalaysia emigration ratemalaysias brain drain statisticsmigration rate malaysiamigration statistics malaysiamalaysia emigrant statisticsmalaysian emigrantsstatistic at tuition center who are not professionals in malaysiastatistics of illegal immigrants in malaysiachart of illegal immigrants in malaysiabrain drain graphmalaysian immigration statisticsmalaysia emigrationTindak Malaysia-migration out of malaysiaimmigration department of malaysia statisticmalaysia illegal immigrants statisticsmalaysia talent outflow statisticgraphs on current events in malaysia
SEO Blog

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •