Talk:Malaysia/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Edit regarding improper sourcing/wikipedia conflict.

I edited the line reading, "The constitution grants freedom of religion and makes Malaysia an officially secular state, while establishing Islam as the "religion of the Federation." by removing the phrase, "and makes Malaysia an officially secular state." The reason for this is that the cited source does not state that. I mean that specifically with regards to the claim that *the constitution* makes Malaysia an officially secular state. The cited source is a press statement from the bar association which

1. Is an interpretive opinion. Opinions should be stated as such. While one may have greater credibility, their opinion is just as much an opinion as the DPM's statement they are arguing against.
2. Does not claim the secular nature based on the explicit text of the constitution. It claims that this was the obvious intent, though, based on a reading of the alliance report, elements of the constitution, etc. That may be true, but it is still an interpretive opinion. To be an objective fact as written, it does not need a one page press statement explaining history and the development of the constitution, it just needs to point out the article/line of the constitution that states Malaysia is secular.
3. It is incorrect by definition per Wikipedia. Please see the wikipedia page on "state religion" which currently states, "A state with an official religion (also known as confessional state), while not secular, is not necessarily a theocracy." There seems to be no disagreement that the constitution establishes an official religion (see article 3 of the constitution); therefore, it should not be called a secular state.

I believe what is meant to be said is that Malaysia is not a theocratic state. Nonetheless, I suggest that you simply provide a better reference, identify it as an opinion, or re-word the sentence to reflect that the secular nature is indicated by these other facts. A15730 (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

A constitution does not need to say "X is a secular state" to create a secular state. For example, the United States constitution doesn't have the word secular. The secular nature (or not) of a state emerges from its structure, in this case one created by the constitution. The position of Malaysia as a secular state despite the status of Islam is an established topic in literature [1][2], Wikipedia is not a reliable source. CMD (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The US constitution does not have the word secular, but it does explicitly provides that "congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The Malaysian constitution on the other hand explicitly gives jurisdiction of certain matters to the syariah courts. This is besides the point. I cannot find the claim, "The constitution... makes Malaysia an officially secular state... " in the cited source unless I am missing it. Please show me where that exists. Furthermore, that article is an opinion. So, if you can find that wording, the sentence should start with, "According to the ..." I fail to see why expecting a reliable source for the claim is controversial.

If you have another source, great, I'll try to add it. The two items you name here do not seem to do that, however. The first starts with saying that article 3 is the subject of debate and has varied interpretations. The second claims that it seeks to "assess whether Malaysia can be offered as an example of a secular and religious state..." I fail to see how you how you conclude from that that, "The position of Malaysia as a secular state... is an established topic in literature." Well, it certainly is an established topic, but the conclusion certainly isn't.

Obviously, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The meaning of secular can be looked up elsewhere, and I would surprised if any of the definitions would include setting up syariah courts and giving them jurisdiction over matters. I think Tabung Haji and JAKIM are government run as well. Does that all seem secular to you? A15730 (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The first source I provided clearly traces the history of constitutional interpretations, and explicitly cites relevant court rulings: "another former Lord President, Tan Sri Mohamed Salleh Abas, in a landmark judgement in 1988 ruled that the term 'Islam' in Article 3(1) meant 'only such acts as relate to rituals and ceremonies'.6 Salleh Abas noted further that 'the law in this country is still what it is today, secular law, where morality not accepted by the law is not enjoying the status of law'. These two clarifications have in the past been considered definitive in any discussion of Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution." These are explicit legal and scholarly interpretations, and quite well established. Political parties and governments have their views, but these are not equivalent. We don't write, "According to X the US is a secular state, but according to Y it was founded as a Christian nation", despite 300 years of arguments about the topic. The removal of the constitutional origin of secularity removes key information for understanding the topic of Religion in Malaysia, which has been heavily impacted by this tension between secular theory and religious practice. CMD (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

A lot of writing, but yet you can't provide a verifiable source. The source currently given says that Ambiga Sreenevasan says that Malaysia is a secular state: The same source says the DPM said that Malaysia has never been a secular state. If everything is so clear and settled as you say, it should be trivial to provide a reliable source.

There is no 300 years of arguments over whether the US is secular or not because the first amendment is explicit. There is no equivalent in the Malaysian constitution. Why you would want to continue to tie yourself to an analogy which cuts against your argument is beyond me.

To be clear, my issue is that the article as written is essentially saying that the Malaysian constitution declares Malaysia to be secular as if it contains a clause such as in the first amendment of the US constitution, when it does not. I would actually not have a problem if the wording was, "Malaysia is a secular state where freedom of religion is guaranteed, although the constitution names Islam as the religion of the federation," or similar. Even though that is a flawed statement, I view that as more accurate and comprehensive than as currently written. At an absolute minimum, simply add another source from an actual journal or book which outlines the legal interpretation being made. I really don't think that's a big ask, and I do think it would yield a better article. A15730 (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Your suggested wording is wrong, getting back to front the religious politics of the country. The secular component of Malaysia comes from its constitutional and legal history, while the religious component comes from the day to day functioning of the country. The tension exists because of the constitutional establishment of a secular state. In addition to the source already in the article, an additional source was provided two comments above, and a specific quote from it was provided in the previous comment. Here are even more sources: "the Malaysian Constitution since its inauguration in 1957 has endorsed secularism as the governing principle by assuming the separation between religion and the state" "effective secularization of Malaya was achieved with the promulgation of the Federal Constitution in 1957" "Enunciation of a Federal Constitution in 1957, by crystallising such separation between religion and state, effectively established secularism as a governing principle despite an absence of reference to it in words". CMD (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Because it was raised, the US first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The Malaysian constitution: "Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion". Not sure how one is more explicit than the other. CMD (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. The secular component does come from the constitutional history and formation of the country. Absolutely agree. The religious component comes not just from the historical and day to day functioning, but also from the fact that the constitution establishes syariah courts and gives them jurisdiction over matters of significance. Your quote on article 3 and your other comments here completely ignore that aspect. The tension exists because many believe there is a binary choice between being a secular state and being an Islamic state. Neither is completely true as Malaysia has elements of both: You seem to acknowledge this fact, however, you refuse to recognize that both elements are rooted in the constitution. The paper you give here at least does do a reasonable job of laying that out that dichotomy. I did not look deeper into where that pdf is coming from other than seeing that it is somehow funded by the EU. If you think that constitutes a reliable source on par with a respectable journal, please add it as a source and we are done, even though I still think the wording could be better. If you want, I will try to do it, but I am not sure how to do it while avoiding link rot.

With regards to the US first amendment, again, you seem to not address the part where it says "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." There is no equivalent in the Malaysian constitution as far as I know. If we start with the agreement that the US is secular: Remove the make no law part. Still secular? Add wording declaring Christianity to be the official religion. Still secular? Establish religious based courts. Still secular? List religion on government ID cards. Still secular? Subject some people to enforcement of religious laws based on said card. Still secular? Don't allow people to change religion unless said religious court agrees. Still secular? All is backed by the government, and we are not even getting to establishing other government groups which support a specific religion. Taking it to an extreme, one of the heads of the religion per the constitution gets to pick the president from among the members of the house and is not bound to do it based on election results. Huh? If you're still saying secular at this point, I'm not sure what you would need to have to call it not secular.

Anyways, thank you again. Please just make the change noted, if agreeable to you, or let me know and I will try. A15730 (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The United States has a Christian phrase on its currency, there's no need for hypotheticals if you want to find something non-secular about the country. Many of your other examples relate to government practice, which is why I opposed your wording explicitly suggesting Malaysia is a secular state. I also don't think a constitution needs to say "Thou shalt not make laws violating the constitution"; that should be taken as read. That said, what I think is not too important here, what matters is that the scholarly consensus is that Malaysian constitution is considered to have firmly established a secular structure, and to have done so through deliberate intent. The constitution's particular restrictions on Islam are to ensure the religion is strictly codified, in order to preserve the power of the Sultans. I'm not sure why you say I "refuse to recognize that both elements are rooted in the constitution", given I commented on this previously, and when that dichotomy is laid out in the article text under discussion: "The constitution grants freedom of religion and makes Malaysia an officially secular state, while establishing Islam as the "religion of the Federation"". That text explicitly highlights that constitution does both of these things. The rest of the section devotes some space to the actual government practice, defining identity through religion and controlling the practice of the Islamic faith. I w ill add one of the additional sources above at a later point. CMD (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I read "The consititution grants freedom of religion and makes Malaysia an officially secular state..." as a strict statement. It seems that you would agree with the claim that Malaysia is both secular and non-secular? If that's the case, you are simply making a larger allowance in that statement than I think it bears. I do think I am correct on the reasoning here because it also matches the definition of secular as I can find it, including as expressed on-point in the Wiki page I mentioned earlier. To sum, I think I see your point, but I think the expression of it is flawed. No matter. We can agree to disagree because I think it is getting to be more semantics than substance.

My main point which I began with and haven't abandoned is that the source cited was a poor quality source which did not address the text in question. I know you probably don't agree with that, but it is very clear to me for the reasons already given. If any of them are valid, a better source is needed. I do like this last article you have though. It makes no sense to me that it can say that the Malaysian constitution has endorsed secularism by "assuming the separation between religion and state." when the state is very clearly involved in religion. It does lay things out well enough, though, that anyone who reads it should realize that the secular claim is not so "cut and dry" as they might think.

I will try to revert and add that. If I muck it up, please feel free to fix it. Best Regards.

p.s.: The courts in the US have ruled on the validity of "In God We Trust" and declared it secular and not in violation of the establishment clause more than once. So, your analogy fails again. The very fact that you think the US/Malaysia analogy helps your argument in any way is a clear proof to me that we are seeing things through a different lens. Such is life. You seem like a nice person and I hope this hasn't caused you any undue consternation. A15730 (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2022

Mushi MSN (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC) Hello Wikipedia. I'm Mushi MSN. I wanted to edit this Wiki Page because instead of Anwar Ibrahim, the previous editor should've put YAB Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim.

 Not done: Honourifics are not commonly used on en.wiki. CMD (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The King's role has been largely ceremonial since changes to the constitution in 1994, picking ministers and members of the upper house.

Picking [sic] ministers and members of the upper house is a highly political role, far from being just ceremonial. If you choose who is a minister, you, to some extent, decide government policy. If the king's role actually is largely ceremonial, then he might instead be involved with formally appointing ministers and senators on the prime minister's recommendation. This is what the constitutional monarchs of countries such as the United Kingdom do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5988:EC00:FCBD:2105:7E2:D233 (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The nearby planned capital of Putrajaya is the administrative capital

If Putrajaya is the planned (i.e. future) capital it cannot presently be the capital, administrative or otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5988:EC00:FCBD:2105:7E2:D233 (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Negaraku instrumental.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Link to "Malaysia Agreement" page

In the history section there is the sentence:

After this a plan was put in place to federate Malaya with the crown colonies of North Borneo (which joined as Sabah), Sarawak, and Singapore.

Can we link it to the relevant page Malaysia Agreement? Rojo27 (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Minor Edit Needed

The hyperlink within the Malaysia article lists Malaysia as the 45th most populous of the world's most populous countries, however the actual list has Malaysia as the 46th. 134.129.226.161 (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Due to the recent population check it is still the 45th most populous country. FusionSub (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

This nonsense is exhausting

The GDP of Malaysia is ~400 x 10^9 USD, not ~400 x 10^12 USD. 24.54.13.220 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Q: status?

It is currently 2023... so... update?

excerpt = "With current rates of deforestation, mainly for the palm oil industry, the forests are predicted to be extinct by 2020." Howard from NYC (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Actual text cited from the source (p. 1171) reads:

"Conservationists estimate that if current rates of deforestation persist, the entire lowland forest of northern Borneo will have been destroyed by 2020."

That was likely based on reports from early to mid-2000's, since the book was published in 2007. Latest report from World Resources Institute on forests summarized the following for Malaysia as a whole.

"Malaysia has seen five years in a row of declining primary forest loss, though it has lost nearly a fifth of its primary forest since 2001."

Still, I'm not sure if these info are enough to fix that section in the main article. There are other sweeping, outdated statements that need revisiting. Hytar (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

By 1606 Portugal was part of Spain

For the:

The Dutch fleet battling with the Portuguese armada as part of the Dutch–Portuguese War in 1606 to gain control of Malacca

It was the Spanish-Dutch war (Dutch fighting for their Independence from Spain, while the South of Flandes remained loyal to Spain (and it's now Belgium, north of France,...).

--2A02:AB88:C8B:5D80:A4BA:A161:35C7:891B (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

"coat of arms" or "national emblem"

in indonesia, the literal translation of "national emblem" is "lambang negara". but in malaysia, the literal translation of "coat of arms" is "jata negara" why there are difference in translation between bahasa indonesia, and bahasa malaysia? i dont know if "jata negara" means either "coat of arms" or "national emblem" in its own right. well i consider "jata negara" in malaysia, the english translation is "national emblem", not "coat of arms" as called the former in indonesia. 2404:8000:1027:2C72:6936:6557:182D:393E (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

malaysia is just malaysia alone in official title

why malaysia lacks a long name when compared to indonesia long name, which is "republic of indonesia"? why not using the long name called "kingdom of malaysia"? let alone find a suitable long name for malaysia country. 2404:8000:1027:2C72:6936:6557:182D:393E (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Fazley01 (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is British English preferred?

@Jaguar: Why is British English favored over Malaysian English in this article? Jarble (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Please reflect this in English version.

Malaysia (Jawi: ‏مليسيا‎‎) ialah sebuah negara raja berperlembagaan persekutuan di Asia Tenggara yang terdiri daripada 11 buah negeri Melayu, 2 negeri Borneo dan 3 wilayah persekutuan yang menduduki bumi berkeluasan 330,803 kilometer persegi (127,720 bt2). Malaysia terbahagi kepada 2 kawasan yang mengapit Laut China Selatan, iaitu Semenanjung Malaysia dan Malaysia Borneo. Malaysia berkongsi sempadan darat dengan Thailand, Indonesia, dan Brunei dan juga sempadan laut dengan Singapura dan Filipina. 42.153.52.177 (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This request is incomprehensible and non-English, and I don't think we need to explainin the lead that mainland Malaysia is divided into 11 states and Malaysian Borneo into 2. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Malaysia's administrative divisions are described in this section. Jarble (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)