Colourful Women of Malaysia; Pale Second-Class Citizens

If you are a woman in Malaysia, you are less equal compared to another male citizen. To make it simple, for every $1 a man earns, you will only earn $0.58. This is just an example to show why Malaysian women are akin to second-class citizens.

More often than not, when one discusses about women's rights, the nature of discussion revolves around how their rights are violated when they are expected solely to care for the children, abandoned by their spouses without any financial aid or when the women are criticised for their attires in public. Women in Malaysia are regarded as fully enfranchised from the male control, unlike in the olden days. They are seen as equally treated as their male counterparts and not discriminated. This, however, is not completely true. In the Global Gender Gap 2015 by World Economic Forum, Malaysia has scored 0.655. A score of 0 indicate perfect inequality and the other end of the spectrum (which is a score of 1), indicates perfect equality. Looking at the score, Malaysians should not be too quick in being proud of the “accomplishment”.

This is because, although Malaysia's score is above the midpoint, its ranking internationally is saddening. Malaysia has been ranked at the 111th spot out of a total of 145 countries. For a country that tries to be in the high-income league within 5 years, this is indeed shocking. Yet, this is not the peak of the shock. Scrutinising the Global Gender Gap reports in the past 5 years (2011-2015), Malaysia's ranking has been deteriorating. Since 2011, in which Malaysia's ranking was at 97th , it has been falling until reaching 111th rank in 2015. But the “good” news is, Malaysia's score has improved (albeit very marginally) from 0.653 in 2011 to 0.655 in 2015. An improvement of 0.002. The latest report was published only a few weeks ago, yet received minimal coverage in the media unlike other rankings where Malaysia has performed incredibly.

How are women treated in the employment sector?

Department of Statistics Malaysia's “Salaries & Wages Survey Report 2014” has found that the median monthly wage of male employees was RM1,600 while the female employees' median stood at RM1,500. The same report has shown that the gender wage gap in 2014 was 5.8%. To add salt into injury, the gender wage gap has only increased compared to 2013, when it was at 4.6%. It is understandable when women are underpaid if they are lowly skilled and are less experienced. But in Malaysia, it may not be necessarily so. In Malaysia, among the population that have attained tertiary education, female-male ratio stands at 1.21. This means that there are more females with tertiary education and Malaysia is also ranked first in the world. This is a great accomplishment of our education system. Considering this, it is a big question on why women are lowly paid compared to their male counterparts.

Of course, there will be voices claiming that tertiary education alone may not guarantee appropriate salaries. These voices will suggest that women are less skilled and less experienced, and thus, their pay will be low as well. The Statistics Department’s Salaries and Wages Survey Report 2013 has shown that women in Malaysia earn 18-39% less than the men. For example, in the skilled workers category, a woman earned 39.7% less than a man. In the managers category, a woman earned 18.7% less than a man. Considering the fact that a person will not be able appointed to a managerial post without high skills, how did the women within the category be entitled to such a low pay relative to a man's salary? The latest Global Gender Gap report has indicated that in Malaysia, the female-male ratio in wage equality for similar work is at 0.81. In simpler terms, a woman only earns 81% of what a man earns even though both have completed the same work. A point to ponder is, do women in Malaysia deserve this discrimination?

How are women treated in politics?

Malaysia's political sphere has seen the presence of some strong female leadership in the past and also in the present. Few notable names would be Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz, Datuk Seri Sharizat Abdul Jalil, Nurul Izzah Anwar and perhaps few others. But undeniably, in general, the domestic political arena is dominated by the presence of the male politicians. Top posts in political parties are predominantly controlled by men as well as in the federal and the states' executive branches. Positions in political parties are usually earned through one's charisma and strong leadership skills (not to mention the presence of bribery). The question is, are women in politics less competitive than their male counterparts or women simply despise partaking in politics? Or perhaps, is it the male chauvinism in political parties that prevent the growth of women in politics?

Looking at the composition of women in the lower chamber of the Parliment (Dewan Rakyat), one can simply deduce that women are poorly represented. After the 12th and 13th general elections of Malaysia, proportion of elected female representative in the Parliament, stagnated at a paltry 10%. The Global Gender Gap 2015 ranked Malaysia at 134 out of 145 countries. It means Malaysia is at the bottom 20 countries worldwide, as per the report. This poor representation can be explained by lack of women nominated by political parties in the general elections. The ugly truth is, the perception that women are not suitable for political contestations still lingers. Just before the 2013 General Election, Datuk Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man (Pahang PAS commissioner) stated that the state committee has decided not to field any women among the 40% of “new faces” going into the general election. He believes that they were not ready “due to work and other commitments”. Not only that, recently during the Selangor crisis of appointing the next Mentri Besar after Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, an UMNO lawyer, Datuk Mohd Hafarizam Harun said Datuk Seri Wan Azizah is not suitable for the post as she suffers from menses monthly. If even the Opposition Leader of the Dewan Rakyat is discriminated because of her gender, what about others?

In the 2013 General Election, Barisan Nasional nominated 727 candidates (parliamentary and state assembly). Out of these, only 71 of them are females and they form 9.8% of the total nominated candidates. On the other hand, the now defunct Pakatan Rakyat nominated 733 candidates and 77 of them are females. This essentially means that 10.5% of the candidates nominated by Pakatan Rakyat are females, which is marginally higher than Barisan Nasional by 0.7%.

Looking at the federal cabinet composition, women representation has been at dismal proportions for years. The author has analysed federal cabinet compositions (excluding Deputy Ministers) under the last three Prime Ministers. The analysis includes the cabinet line-ups in 1999 (under Mahathir); 2004, 2006 and 2008 (under Abdullah) as well as 2009, 2013, 2015 (under Najib). The years 2006, 2009 and 2015 indicate the line-ups after Cabinet reshuffling. It has been found that from 1999 to 2015, the maximum number of women ministers has been at merely 3. This is indeed shocking. In 1999, female representation in the Cabinet stood at 10.71%. The average during the Abdullah administration was at 8.24% while Najib administration's was at 7.16%. It can be said that the percentage of female representation in the Cabinet has been falling throughout the years.

Recommendation

As this article has focused on employment and politics, it is recommended that the government introduces new measures in helping the women increase their participation in these areas. Although the existing Industrial Relation Act 1967 provides for an Industrial Court, it has been widely criticised as time-consuming and inefficient. Thus, in the interest of honouring the rights of the women in the employment sector, a statutory commission should be established to cater to the complaints from women in the workforce in regards to discrimination and to act upon the complaints promptly. This commission should be empowered to audit all business entities against discrimination of workers (regardless of gender). This commission should be able to fill in the gap left by poor workers' related laws and trade unions in Malaysia. The commission should also be powerful in penalising businesses that discriminate workers' because of their gender. Apart from that, Bursa Malaysia and Companies Commission of Malaysia should make it mandatory for businesses to report the “level of equality” in wage payment and others, annually. This will enable the creation of proper database of treatment of workers that can be utilised by the aforementioned commission.

The Parliament should amend the Election Act to include statutory provision that 30% of parliamentary and state seats in each states will be designated only for female-contestation. India, for example, has somewhat determined that certain constituencies can only be contested by women. By allowing 30% of each states' political seats only for women, it can remarkably increase female participation in the political arena. Not only that, each contesting political party should be required to nominate at least 30% women candidates, as prerequisite for contestation in the general elections.

The government should also adopt a binding pledge that 50% of the upcoming Cabinet line-ups will be represented by women ministers. It is unacceptable if the Prime Minister complains of not having qualified female candidate for the ministerial posts, as even many of the incumbent male ministers lack the ability to become a good minister. Perhaps, female ministers can do better. But, of course, qualified individuals especially technocrats, should be appointed to lead the ministries.

Conclusion

Improving the rights of the women in Malaysia is not an easy feat, in fact it is not easy even internationally. It is estimated that it may take 118 years or more to close the gender gap, based on the current trajectory. All parties have to play their roles in recognising the rights of women. Campaigns on this subject matter need to be more widely organised and should include males as well. Feminists need to understand that the struggle is against the system and the culture, thus more coordinated and diplomatic actions need to be employed. Some feminists tend to be “man-hating” and use force in demonstrating for their rights. Some even go bare-breasted in the spirit of “protesting”. Now, do you really think the men would feel threatened by that?

To close the gender gap, men have to be part of the initiative. The Asian Development Outlook 2015 Update has estimated that by eliminating gender disparity in developing Asia would increase per capita income by 70% within two generations. In particular, for Malaysia, closing the gender gap will enable increase in GDP by 15-20%, according to International Monetary Fund. Asian Development Bank found that if intra-female representation in the workforce is increased to 70% (which in 2014 was at 53.6% - this includes unemployed women actively in search for a job), annual GDP would be 2.9% higher in Malaysia.

To the men out there, recognising the rights of the women will create mutual benefits for everyone. Let us all allow women to enjoy the best of their lives and make sure that male chauvinism will not hamper Malaysia's growth.

Inequality in Malaysia; Is it too bad?

Should the government tax the rich more and distribute the revenue to the poor? Or rather, should the government own all the properties (factors of production) to create an equal (or equally poor) society? The answer is, give tax breaks to the “capitalists” in order to reduce inequality. Yes, this may seem as a case of juxtaposition, yet it is not be necessarily so.

Inequality matters, especially in Malaysia. Here, inequality can spark not only inter-class conflicts, but more worryingly, inter-ethnic tensions. In Malaysia, although the public perception on wealth inequality has only worsened, official data has shown otherwise. Over the last decade, wealth inequality has reduced rather significantly. In 2002, the Gini coefficient (a tool to measure income inequality ranging from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating an equal society and 1 indicating an extremely unequal society) stood at 0.46. However, as per the latest Household Income Survey, the Gini coefficient has dropped to 0.401. Statistically, this means Malaysia is getting more economically equitable. On a more interesting note, the intra-Bumiputra Gini coefficient is 0.389, the lowest compared to the Chinese and Indian community. This is interesting as the Gini coefficient of the Bumiputra has on average, been the highest of all three groups in the years, hitherto.

Not only that, to further substantiate the argument, the bottom 40% mean household income has grown 6.1% annually from 2002 till 2012, in contrast to only 5.6% for the middle 40% and 4.6% for the top 20% of households. Taking the figures into consideration, one can deduce that the growing concern of worsening inequality in Malaysia, is unjustified. However, there will always be caveats. The statistical findings may not be entirely representative of the Malaysian populace, as out of 6.7 million households, 81,137 households were surveyed. This is only about 1.2%.

Now, this article is not to argue whether absolute equality is possible or not, but rather to highlight ways to reduce inequality and move in the direction towards an equitable state. There are many ways to achieve equality, for example through Marxian type state control of factors of production (which will hamper individual liberty) and also through taxes. Even the World Bank advocates for the use of taxes and transfers to facilitate wealth distribution within a society. This can be best exemplified by the Nordic welfare state model, in which high taxes are levied to provide essential services as public goods at zero cost (although it is paid indirectly through taxes). Such model has remarkably succeeded, registering low Gini coefficients compared to other sovereign states.

But, taxes alone should not be the option. The state needs to look far beyond. Whilst welfare state concept may seem altruistic and compassionate towards the needy, it may not be sustainable, especially during the economic cycle’s recessionary period. This article agrees that public spending on key areas in Malaysia such as education and healthcare needs to be increased (and means-tested at the same time), however, over-reliance on the public purse is detrimental as well. The need to find the middle ground is inevitable.

Therefore, Malaysians need to discover the concept of “welfare society”, rather than too much dependence on welfare state. Welfare society basically extends the idea that the society itself plays a major role in re-distributing wealth. Sounds too utopian? Pretty much, yes. As aforementioned, there is a need to find a middle ground between welfare state and welfare society. While the government should levy higher taxes and introduce appropriate transfers, it should also encourage corporations and business entities to reduce inequality in their payrolls. This is how it works. Inequality exists everywhere, especially in one’s workplace. The senior manager of the company may pocket a high monthly salary, but this may not replicate among the ordinary staff. In such companies, intra-company Gini coefficient will be high.

Not only that, there are concerns that capital owners (owners of business entities) do not reward their employees appropriately in relative to the profits made by the business. This concern is also justified. In Malaysia, the compensation of employees, CE (labour cost) stood at 34.3% as of 2014. Shockingly, in 1971, the CE stood around 33.8%. Not much difference along the years. CE needs to be increased to more than 40% to ensure better allocation of reward for the labour of the workforce. Some countries have even CE above 50%. A higher CE ensures that wealth is not extremely concentrated in the hands of the “capitalists”.

This article suggests that the Malaysian government provide attractive tax breaks and other perks for companies that has low intra-company Gini coefficient (say, below 0.35) and high intra-company CE (say, 40%). The figures are made-up to simplify understanding, but should be altered appropriately according to the current situation.  Such initiatives will help to reduce the inequality within corporations and companies, and further complement efforts to boost equality at macro level. This measure may also help to reduce the gender-wage gap in Malaysia that discriminates the women, if computed for the eligibility of tax breaks. The Department of Statistics’ findings has shown that there are differences in the wage received by the women compared to their male counterparts. In 2014, the median monthly salaries & wages of male employees was RM1, 600 compared to female employees at RM1, 500. The gender wage gap in 2014 stood at 5.8% compared to only 4.6% the previous year.

However, it has to be reminded that these measures will not create income equality out of nowhere, but rather, it will facilitate the reduction of inequality. We have to be mindful that the shadow economy (unregulated economy) in Malaysia is large at about 30% of the national gross domestic product (GDP). Thus, these measures may not produce much success under the unregistered companies.

All in all, achieving equality in income is not about forcing the corporations to pay more. A higher pay should commensurate with better productivity and skills. At present, only 27% of Malaysians are categorised as “skilled workers”, having tertiary education. And only 10.4% of the workforce are degree holders. This needs to change. The corporations and the government need to collectively find ways to enlarge the pool of skilled workers in favour of knowledge-driven economy. Past evidences have shown clearly that higher education does contribute to better income. As highlighted by Khazanah Research Institute, in 2013, those with a degree would have a median wage of RM 3,890, which is 159 percent higher than those with SPM qualification. Thus, reducing inequality should not be a zero-sum game, but rather a win-win situation.

Inequality in Malaysia may not be too over-whelming, but a sudden downturn in the economy can worsen economic conditions, may create ripple effects on racial relations. The Chinese are still seen as dominating the economy although the real situation is, most Malaysians are somewhere in the same range of economic standards. In tough economic times, fuelled by ridiculous racial slurs incited by unscrupulous beings (politicians in many cases), inequality may invite racial divide. Thus, it is pertinent that this subject matter be dealt with great concern. Welfare society may be idealistic, but through education and appropriate government policies, the transition to a welfare society can be facilitated.

Tax the Malaysians More

I attended the National Unity Youth Fellowship workshop conducted by one of the leading think-tanks in Malaysia, IDEAS Malaysia during the last weekend, which focused on socio-economic and national unity in Malaysia. The founder of the think-tank, Mr Wan Saiful presented his views on free-market economy or economic liberalism as preached by the demi-god Adam Smith. He also questioned the need to be afraid of the rich and advocated for reduction of taxes in Malaysia.

Whilst it was a good presentation, nevertheless I choose to differ in opinion. Should we be afraid of the rich and reduce the taxes?

No, to both questions. The rich or even the super-rich are “capital accumulators”, which means they play significant roles in providing economic opportunities to the masses or as in Karl Marx's term, the proletariat. While the government can also partake in domestic investments to spur the economic growth, it is unsustainable as the monies in the public purse may be exhausted in the long run as the monetary resource should also be used to fund infrastructure developments and domestic welfare programmes.

Not only that, to have the government as the only economic engine would mean more revenue generation. Knowing that revenue from commodities, namely natural resources are not sustainable and bound to deplete, the only way is to impose taxes on all, regardless of their economic status. But, astronomical increment of taxes will only hurt the people or ironically, cause less tax-revenue generation as presented by the Laffer's curve of taxation. Apart from all these, government's intense participation in business sphere will also crowd out private investment and “de-motivate” the private sector from engaging in economic investments.

Having said that, private sector is very vital in the economic well-being and here is where the capital accumulators or the rich play their role. So basically, there is no need to be afraid of the rich or their accumulated wealth. However, it does not necessarily mean that the rich should be taxed less. In fact, the rich should be taxed even higher compared to now and in different forms.

As I mentioned above, the rich are the capital accumulators. But they also have a different form of existence in the economy. The rich are the “wealth hoarders”. Reading into Thomas Picketty, a French economist's argument in his magnum opus, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, it is deduced that “rate of return on capital is higher than the rate of return on economic growth”. This effectively means, the return from economic activities enjoyed by the rich is higher than the return by other participants in in the economy i.e. the working class.

 While the return from the capital investment by the rich may be re-invested and further spur more economic activities, a significant portion of this “new-found wealth” is hoarded in the form of savings (not to mention “parking” the money in sealed Swiss banks), real estates, equities, etc. These form of assets can be considered as “unproductive” and have little multiplier effects on the economic growth. Anyone with an academic background in economics can surely recall the first “mantra” thought in class, which is “resources are scarce”. It is true, and this applies to financial resources. When the rich “hoards” the financial resources in these form of unproductive assets which are incapable of creating more jobs and opportunities, it causes reduction in resources for further economic activities to take place.

For example, Mr GK is a super-rich industrialist. For the fiscal year of 2014, he made an extra wealth of RM1, 000,000,000. But since he choose to “park” his money in Swiss bank accounts and to buy four more bungalows, he is left with RM1,000,000 in hand and this is the portion of wealth that he re-invests. This is how vast financial resources are hoarded by the rich and contributes to the reduction of “productive” assets that generates the economy.

This situation is worrying as it presents more negative implications that we can imagine to the economy. Inequality is a major problem arising from this scenario. Going by the official records in 2009, 2012 and 2014, inequality in Malaysia as measured by the Gini coefficient is going down. The Gini coefficient is a measure to show the inequality of wealth between the rich and the poor. A zero coefficient shows an equal distribution of wealth in an economy while the extreme end, which is 1 shows the most unequal distribution of wealth. Malaysia's records are 0.44, 0.43 and 0.42 in 2009, 2012 and 2014 respectively. Although it shows a declining trend, the coefficients show us an unequal distribution of wealth and that wealth is concentrated in the hands of some. As a contrast, Norway which imposes high taxation rates, stands at 0.25.

So, the question is, how do we solve this?

Increase Taxes and Introduce More Types of Taxes

These solutions may not invite the acceptance of many at the first sight. Ordinary working class Malaysians will absolutely be fumed over such “ridiculous suggestions”. These suggestions are not to be imposed on the low income and the middle income earners, but rather, on the rich group of Malaysians.

Many people around the world have always seen taxation only as a tool to raise national revenue. But apart from that, taxes can also redistribute the wealth of a society. Official records from Department of Statistics show that Malaysian workers' wage share of GDP (or economy size) in 2013 stood at 33.6%. However, the employers' share of GDP is at 64.2% and merely, 2.2% was collected as taxes.

In contrast, in 1971, wages to GDP stood at 33.8%. 51.7% was employers’ share whilst taxes comprised a higher share of 14.5% of GDP. To note, a higher proportion of return on GDP is retained by the employers now compared to in 1971, due to the low rate taxes imposed in recent times. However, I would not say that society was more equal in wealth distribution in 1971 as the Gini coefficient was 0.513 then. So what went wrong? The problem lies in weak social safety net of Malaysia in 1971.

My argument is, high taxes should be imposed on the rich and the proceeds from the taxes should be channelled to the poor in the form of social welfare programmes, targeted subsidies and cash transfers (although the current form of cash transfer, BR1M is not recommended). World Bank in 2014 mentioned that Malaysia's Gini coefficient – although reported as 0.43 in 2013, after taxes and transfers, it remains at 0.41. For OECD countries, the inequality index after taxes and transfers is 0.32, 0.14 points less than the initial coefficient of 0.46.

This is the impact created when high taxes on the rich are channelled to the poor through strong social safety net programme. This is where Malaysia needs to emphasise on. However, having said that, I do not advocate on raising the corporate taxes as Malaysia's highest rate of corporate tax is already one of the highest in the region. Low corporate tax is needed to entice multinational companies to invest in production capacities within Malaysia. Low corporate taxes also prevent home-grown companies to flee the country to invest abroad, and thus weakening our domestic direct investment.

To substantiate this argument, it is worth noting that Singapore's highest corporate tax is at 17%, Thailand at 20% while Malaysia's at 24%. Indonesia recently has indicated to reduce its tax from 25% to 17.5%. Hence, to remain competitive, Malaysia also needs to reduce its corporate taxes and present itself as an investors' haven.

To be fair to the Najib administration, it has done a good job in introducing GST (despite certain flaws and silly remarks from ministers) and in restructuring the income taxes. Compared to the previous years where above RM3,000 incomes are taxed, from 2015 onwards, only those earning above RM5,000 will be taxed. Highest tax income bracket has also been increased from RM100,000 to RM400,000 to focus more on the rich. However, the highest tax rate is reduced from 26% to 25%. I personally do not see this as a good development.

What Type of New Taxes?

The Malaysian government should introduce Capital Gains Tax (on equity transactions), inheritance tax on inheritance of huge sum of estates from one individual to another and Malaysian version of under-occupancy penalty (Bedroom Tax) on the rich who owns huge residentials despite having small families.

Apart from that, Malaysia should also introduce a flat-rate tax on Malaysians living abroad but hold Malaysian citizenship. Currently, Malaysia's income taxes are imposed on income earned within Malaysian borders, regardless of the individual's citizenship. Income earned abroad is not taxed. Malaysians living abroad should be taxed at a minimum flat-rate as an obligation to the citizenship and for the nation's well-being. But of course, these Malaysians should be appreciated and allowed to vote in the general elections without the need of returning home, unlike the current scenario.

Taxes are not bad, but should be imposed on the individuals with the capacity to pay. Taxes on everyone, regardless of rich or poor, can be devil's toy. But again, high taxes coupled with imprudent spending by the Government, only destroys the society.

Malaysia needs strong trade and workers’ unions

The concern over trade or workers’ union in Malaysia has never been remarkable. Having repressive laws that inhibited the influence of trade unions even since colonial era, Malaysians paid less attention to the role of trade unions in a society’s welfare. Moreover, with Hudud and GST clogging up the public sphere, probably less Malaysians takes concern over the relevance of trade unions.

Trade unions are instrumental in creating and strengthening collective bargaining power between the employees and employers. A good relationship between a strong trade union and the employer helps the workers to enjoy more benefits and see better pay commensurate with increased productivity. Strong trade unions are pertinent in making sure the rights of the workers are not violated by the employers, besides being a medium to boost labour productivity.

Historically, the colonial master, the British Empire was never fond of workers’ union. The British introduce the Societies Ordinance as far back as 1889 to prohibit the growing influence of the working class, apart from the nationalist fighters. The Communist forces, which has been painted negatively in Malaysian history played vital role in the growth of trade unions of Malaya back then.

The Malayan Communist Party led the Open Front comprising of other political parties and organisations in the aftermath of recapture of Malaya by the British forces after the downfall of Japanese occupation. In this front, the General Labour Union (GLU) played a crucial role in fighting for the Malayan independence. This GLU was later divided into two; one in-charge of Singapore’s labour union whilst the Malaya’s was taken care by the Pan-Malayan Federation of Trade Union (PMFTU). The Communist force also played a role in controlling the PMFTU and advocating against liberation of Malaya.

Looking at the possible damage that can be caused by such labour unions in many issues and particularly opposing the Federation of Malaya 1948 proposal, the British oppressors enforced registration of all trade unions. Government servants were prohibited from joining unions of non-government employees. This is in pursuit of a divide in unity of the domestic workforce. Further actions were taken to mandate registration of trade unions in which trade unions’ membership can only be opened workers’ in similar occupation and industries. This rendered PMFTU as illegal and further weakened trade unions’ activities in Malaya.

A comprehensive analysis of current legislations pertaining to Malaysia’s labour law show that such provisions introduced by the British exist till today.

Malaysia’s legislations on employment and industrial relations comprises of the Trade Union Act, Industrial Relations Act and the Employment Act. There are many existing provisions that weaken the influence of trade unions. For example, trade unions can only be regional and not national which means that a trade union can be formed to cover Peninsular Malaysia or Sabah or Sarawak, but a single trade union cannot include all three. Besides, workers’ unions used to be not permissible in industries conferred with “pioneer” status under Section 15 of Industrial Relations Act, but has since been annulled after amendment in 2007. To note, whilst trade unions can be formed within the electrical sector, in electronics sector, trade unions were limited to “in-house establishment”, which means trade union within a company and not inclusive of employees of the company’s subsidiary workers. This rule was only relaxed in 2009 when the Cabinet allowed regional trade unions for the electronics sector.

Thus, the status quo is establishment of four regional trade unions in Peninsular Malaysia; Western, Eastern, Northern and Southern. However, the rule is not fully liberalised since the Electronic Industry Employees Union covers only workers in Peninsular Malaysia, not including workers of East Malaysia. As aforementioned, apart from not allowing civil servants to join trade unions with non-civil servants, only workers from similar occupation can form a trade union. This essentially means, while lorry drivers can form a trade union, it cannot include teachers and bankers.

Effects of Poor Labour Law

Such rules and provisions fragment the workforce and weaken collective bargaining power. This opens the way for the “capitalists” to ill-treat the workers and not paying sufficient wages. This explains why there are claims regarding employers not adhering to the minimum wage rule and mistreating the employees. A study by Verite (a global NGO) and funded by the United States Department of Labour, found evidences about abuse of workers' rights in Malaysia's RM241 billion electronics industry.

Malaysia’s 1^st Human Development Report specifically touches on effects of weak workers’ union in Malaysia. Share of wages to national income has actually decreased from 33.8% in 1970 to 32.9% in 2012. But in contrast to this, corporate profits has increased from about half of the national income to nearly two-thirds during the same period. Malaysia’s share of wages is low in comparison to other countries; South Korea’s share is 50.6%, Singapore’s 42.3% and the United Kingdom’s 62.6%. It is also added that trade union density has dropped by about 40% since 1982 and currently only eight per cent of Malaysian workers belong to a union. This is despite growing number of union members and trade unions in Malaysia.

In the past, workers’ who tried to fight for the rights of the other workers have been suspended and even fired. For instance, Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB) took serious actions (sacking, issuance of show-cause letter) over many employees after nearly 700 Railwaymen’s Union of Malaysia (RUM) picketed against the mismanagement of KTMB. They also voiced for the resignation of KTMB’s President, Datuk Kadir Elias. Although the affected workers were re-instated, they were required to sign a memorandum which included reduction of salaries, according to the President of RUM, Abdul Razak Md Hassan who refused to sign.

Apart from that, President of the National Union of Flight Attendants Malaysia (NUFAM), Ismail Nasaruddin was terminated by Malaysian Airlines Systems Berhad (MAS) for issuance of media statement urging MAS CEO Ahmad Jauhari Yahya (now former CEO) to resign. It was mentioned by NUFAM that the CEO has failed to take care of the workers’ plight since his appointment. The list goes on and on about such actions by employers that weaken and inhibit the activities of the trade unions.

Conclusion

Malaysia’s productivity level, despite being lower than many developed nations such as Japan and Singapore, is actually growing ahead of other emerging economies. Data from the Malaysia’s Productivity Report 2013/2014 shows that productivity between 2009 and 2013 has increased by 11.7%. But, the bigger question is, has the salary increased as much too?

To recall, minimum wage policy was introduced after it was noticed that salary increment fell behind productivity growth. Few years ago, a World Bank report noted that in the past decade, Malaysia’s productivity growth was 6.7% whilst the salary increment was merely 2.6%. Such scenario may re-emerge, and thus strong trade unions (especially a national-level trade union comprising of all workers) can work towards helping the workers get compensation that they deserve.

For that, Malaysia needs strong amendments to the existing laws with the workers’ welfare in mind, while at the same time, is fair to the employers. However, recent announcement by Deputy Human Resource Ministers, Datuk Seri Ismail Abdul Mutalib that the government will propose amendments to the Trade Unions Act 1959 to ensure it will be in tandem to the TPP trade agreement, creates more questions. First, is the TPP sure to be ratified? Second, will the workers’ right be trampled in order to satisfy foreign multi-national corporations (MNCs)?

Malaysians need to voice out for stronger trade unions; for your own benefit.

Islam; Why is it growing?

The recent shooting spree in France might trigger the rise of Islamophobia not only in Europe which is seeing high spike of Muslim immigration, but also in the entire world. Recent incidents such as arson attacks in few mosques in Sweden are fuelling unwarranted anticipation of Islamophobia. However, there are chances where the carnage in France will create more sympathisers and support for the ordinary Muslims, as seen in Australia recently after the lone gunman siege.

Islam has become one of the major issues to be discussed in Europe in recent days. Some reasons are attributed to the escalation of tension caused by Islamic State and its affiliates worldwide, returning mujahideens from the IS conflict back to Europe and growing anti-immigration scepticism over increasing number of Muslim population (albeit not forming majority) in many European countries.

Muslims' population in the world has increased robustly and as noted by many sources,it is the fastest growing religion in the world in percentage terms. Islam is now only second to Christianity in population share, and there are predictions that Islam might overgrew Christianity in a matter of few decades, although not anytime soon. What causes Islam to grow at such fast pace?

-Muslim population is vastly concentrated in third-world countries where population check is weak (birth rate is high). Low education level in many Muslim countries especially within conflict-stricken states has helped to increase the population. This is in contrast with the scenario in the Western nations where birth rate is low and the population is ageing.

-Restriction on freedom of religion in many Islamic states and members of the Muslim world (read: OIC) has “helped” to contain the possible conversions of Muslims into other religions. In certain Islamic states, apostasy is punishable by death. In some others, like Malaysia, Muslims are prohibited from conversions and members of other faiths are not allowed to proselytise Muslims. Such practices have maintained the population volume. Such restrictions are not applied in other countries, thus causing fluctuations in the number of faithful of other religions. It is notable that atheism is on the rise as many individuals in modern times reject religious doctrines.

-Muslims’ population in Europe is growing as more immigration of Muslims (educated and non-educated alike) into the region from is notable. This has drawn the ire of many anti-immigration parties in Europe although this is a sense of fear not only targeted to the Muslims alone,but also to other non-Europeans as well. Such increase in population can be attributed to instability in the conflict-stricken countries in Near East with huge scores of refugees and asylum seekers seeking “shelter” in Europe. Other than that, many others are arriving in Europe and the United States in search of greener pastures, which many Near East countries could not promise.

-Like it or not, Islamophobia has done both good and bad for the faith of Islam.In the aftermath of the devastating 9/11 incident, Muslims in the United States and also in other Western nations have seen backlash in the form of harassment and discrimination. However, such incidents have also created sympathisers for innocent common Muslims and this in turn has paved the way for many non-Muslims to get to know Islam in detail. This could also help in conversions into Islam as well.

-Strong devotion to Islam as shown by many Muslim faithful might have also helped in recent conversions of non-Muslims. Lack of understanding and poor belief in one’s religion may cause the individual to lose faith in his or her religion. And in the process of finding peace and soul-searching, he or she might be attracted to the practice of Muslims.

-As the number of youths in the Muslim world is high according to a Pew Research report, the religion will see a significant increase in more members. However, with the Middle East struggling in conflicts and sectarian war, poor healthcare and high death rate may also cause the growth to be less “encouraging”.

To summarize, while the common notion is that Islam will grow, researches have shown that other religions together with atheism shall also increase. Christianity, according to the Pew Research, will also be able to retain its position as the world’s biggest religion longer than expected.