Talk:Malaysia/Archive 5

Human Rights in Malaysia
"Wikipedia's entries on Malaysia and on Najib avoid any mention of human rights, the Internal Security Act, censorship, or the crumbling rule of law. Such whitewashing is not surprising given that Najib hired Washington-based APCO Worldwide to burnish his image and besmirch Anwar's."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thor-halvorssen/malaysias-bridge-is-falli_b_651617.html

There are many issues with human rights, censorship and democracy in Malaysia. This article should mention that.


 * Please sign your posts with 4 ~ or hit the signature button. Well, my comment would be that you shouldn't believe everything you read in the newspapers. Accusations of Wikipedia bias, whitewashing etc appear in media articles quite often about all sorts of topics, particularly the Arab-Israeli conflict. I've never read one that got it's facts right. There is a Human rights in Malaysia article. It just needs people (like you) to work on it. Once it's in a decent shape a copy of the lead of that main article can be added to this article with a link to the main article.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 20:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

East/West Malaysia / State rights issues/questions
Plucking this from the previous section: "Its a complicated issue to put it mildly. Technically, as the text of the Agreement points out, Malaysia was formed as a federation of the existing states of the independent Federation of Malaya and the British Crown Colonies of North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore in 1963. However, there has been a growing sentiment of discontent and open discussion among a significant number of people that the Borneo states were given the short end of the stick in the Federation agreement. This is not helped by the progressively encroaching centralisation of power by the Federal Government at the expense of State rights in Malaysia as well as the geographical, cultural and demographic difference between West Malaysia and East Malaysia. Personally, I sympathise with these sentiments (West Malaysian states have even less autonomy in comparison to East Malaysian states, at least IMHO) --- Bob K" I'm wondering, is there anything neutrally sourced which we can, or should, say about this in the article? Begoon talk  11:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The topic is touched on without much details in Federalism in Malaysia. Further sources for references that I've found so far would be these 2 articles from Aliran:


 * Sabah truly Malaysia?;
 * Restructuring federal-state relations: Critical issue in the next polls; and
 * Sabah, S'wak urged to review agreements


 * Some published sources include:


 * Federal-state relations in Sabah, Malaysia
 * Lim, Regina; Institute of Southeast Asian Studies 2008; ISBN 9812308121
 * Malaysian Federalism Conflict or Consensus
 * Mohammad Agus Yusoff; National University of Malaysia 2006; ISBN 9679427218,
 * Sabah State Elections: Implications for Malaysian Unity
 * Sabihah Osman; Asian Survey, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Apr., 1992), pp. 380-391;     University of California 1992
 * The Kitingan Case, The Borneo States, and The Malaysian Constitution
 * Reece, Bob; Borneo Research Bulletin, Vol. 38, p172-206, 35p; Murdoch University 2007


 * You might notice that the a lot of the discussion gravitated around Sabah and the 20 Point Agreement. This is probably due to the regional character of this debate prior to the 2008 General Elections which saw the Federal Opposition gaining control of the legislatures of some key states. The discussion gained more momentum and took on a more macro perspective with the subsequent tensions that have occurred between the State administrations and the Federal government. - Bob K | Talk 04:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for those. I've had a quick glance at them, and it certainly helped. I've also noticed that there is some coverage of this, at Sabah, which seems to probably be the correct place for it. The talk page for 20 Point Agreement has a comment that it was a submission, rather than an agreement, and I've seen that said in a couple of other places, too. I can certainly better understand where the sentiments behind the comments in the section above came from now.  Begoon  talk  04:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the 20 points document was an agreement or merely a submission is a good question. You'll probably get different answers from different people. Perhaps a good way to find out is to see if it is included in the UN Treaties Database. - Bob K | Talk 08:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Some further academic and political discourse has been happening of late, and one of the questions tackled is similar to the recent debate we had here - whether or not Malaysia is a federation of 13 states or a federation with 3 components. One particularly notable event was a forum jointly organised by the Borneo Heritage Forum and the Common Interest Group Malaysia which saw the participation of some senior politicians and civil servants, including those that were directly involved in the negotiations to form Malaysia. A news report on the forum can be found here. - Bob K | Talk 05:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting reading, thank you - notable that it suggests fairly widespread discontent about the situation even in the youth of Sarawak, which I'm sure may go some way to explaining the sentiments of the anonymous poster in the section above.  Begoon  talk  06:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Malaysian passports & Israel
I removed the following sentence: "As a result, no traveller with a Malaysian passport can enter Israel." it is Malaysia that prohibits its citizens to visit Israel, not Israel. Actually the israeli ministry of foreign affairs explicitely lists Malaysia as a nationality that requires a tourist visa to enter the country: http://miami.mfa.gov.il/mfm/Web/main/document.asp?documentid=155735

69.181.65.84 (talk) 07:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * True, thanks for removing it. People carrying Malaysian passports do enter Israel, but not directly(via Jordan or something). Bejinhan   talks   07:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Says here that Malaysian citizens can enter Israel but require a visa which must be paid for. Qwerta369 (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Enormous footnote in Prehistory Section - what is that ???
I just did a couple of edits to the lead section, and when I scrolled through the article to check I hadn't broken anything, I came across the enormous footnote which refers to the cite after the sentence "Anthropologists support the notion that the Proto-Malays originated from what is today Yunnan, China."

I didn't want to do anything to it without discussing it - it seems to have been there like that since this diff: on September 19, 2009 !!!

There are 27 lines - including references to
 * A design guide of public parks in Malaysia‎
 * Thailand into the 80's‎

all referenced to the "Prehistory" section.

Surely it can't all be necessary as a citation of the text it is inline with ?

Are we able to get consensus on whether we:
 * [a] leave it as it is for fear of removing valuable cites
 * [b] copy it all to the talk page, replace it with a citation needed tag, and let editors re-add what is necessary according to knowledge
 * [c] remove part of it for examination, leaving the "best" parts in (I have no access to a lot of the texts - so I would have no idea which parts)
 * [d] something else...

- Begoon (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, it is long. Why not just remove the references not related to the sentence, like the design guide and Thailand in the 80's? Bejinhan  Talk   06:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We should do at least that. I'm concerned, though, that the fact that these references are in this huge list is indicative that many of the others could be irrelevant, too - but I don't have access to the texts to check. -  Begoon (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just the thing. I have the feeling that some of them might be in there because of a mention of the prehistory of Malaysia, something that still doesn't warrant it to be a reference. I guess we will just have to remove them based on their titles, at least the most obvious ones. Bejinhan  Talk   09:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep/removal discussion
Ok - here's my first stab at it, then (although, as you say, it's based only on the title):


 * India and ancient Malaya (from the earliest times to circa A.D. 1400)‎ – Page 3 – by D. Devahuti, Published by D. Moore for Eastern Universities Press, 1965
 * The making of modern Malaya: a history from earliest times to independence‎ – Page 5 – by N. J. Ryan, Oxford University Press, 1965
 * Southeast Asia, past & present‎ – Page 10 – by D. R. SarDesai published by Westview Press, 1994
 * Man in Malaya‎ – Page 22 – by B. W. Hodder published by Greenwood Press, 1973
 * Indigenous peoples of Asia‎ – Page 274 – by Robert Harrison Barnes, Andrew Gray, Benedict Kingsbury published by the Association for Asian Studies, 1995
 * Peoples of the Earth: Indonesia, Philippines and Malaysia edited by Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard published by Danbury Press, 1973
 * American anthropologist‎ Vol 60 – Page 1228 – by American Anthropological Association, Anthropological Society of Washington (Washington, D.C.), American Ethnological Society, 1958
 * Encyclopaedia Of Southeast Asia (set Of 5 Vols.)‎ – Page 4 – by Brajendra Kumar published by Akansha Publishing House, 2006, ISBN 81-8370-073-X, ISBN 978-81-8370-073-3


 * A history of Malaya and her neighbours‎ – Page 21 – by Francis Joseph Moorhead, published by Longmans of Malaysia, 1965
 * The cultural heritage of Malaya‎ – Page 2 – by N. J. Ryan published by Longman Malaysia, 1971
 * "How the dominoes fell": Southeast Asia in perspective‎ – Page 7 – by Mae H. Esterline, Hamilton Press, 1986
 * A design guide of public parks in Malaysia‎ – Page 38 – by Jamil Abu Bakar published by Penerbit UTM, 2002, ISBN 983-52-0274-5, ISBN 978-983-52-0274-2
 * An introduction to the Malaysian legal system‎ – Page 1 – by Min Aun Wu, Heinemann Educational Books (Asia), 1975
 * A short history of Malaysia‎ – Page 22 – by Harry Miller published by F.A. Praeger, 1966
 * Malaya and its history‎ – Page 14 – by Sir Richard Olaf Winstedt published by Hutchinson University Library, 1962
 * Malaya‎ – Page 17 – by Norton Sydney Ginsburg, Chester F. Roberts published by University of Washington Press, 1958
 * Asia: a social study‎ – Page 43 – by David Tulloch published by Angus and Robertson, 1969
 * Area handbook on Malaya University of Chicago, Chester F. Roberts, Bettyann Carner published by University of Chicago for the Human Relations Area Files, 1955
 * Thailand into the 80's‎ – Page 12 – by Samnak Nāyok Ratthamontrī published by the Office of the Prime Minister, Kingdom of Thailand, 1979
 * The modern anthropology of South-East Asia: an introduction, Volume 1 of The modern anthropology of South-East Asia, RoutledgeCurzon Research on Southeast Asia Series‎ – Page 54 – by Victor T. King, William D. Wilder published by Routledge, 2003, ISBN 0-415-29751-6, ISBN 978-0-415-29751-6
 * Malay and Indonesian leadership in perspective‎ – Page 9 – by Ahmad Kamar, 1984
 * The Malay peoples of Malaysia and their languages‎ – Page 36 – by Asmah Haji Omar published by Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia, 1983
 * A history of Malaysia and Singapore‎ – Page 5 – by N. J. Ryan published by Oxford University Press, 1976
 * Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society‎ – Page 17 – by Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Malaysian Branch, Singapore, 1936

We could shuffle them around in those 2 collapsible sections, while it's under discussion, then collapse them for reference afterwards... The discussion will be here if anyone feels the need to re-add any of them.

- Begoon (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, seems fine. Are those refs for the 1st 2 paragraphs of the Prehistory section too? Bejinhan  Talk   11:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That was my 'approach' - but since we're really taking an "educated guess" it seems impossible to put them inline in the right place - can we make them general references for the section (I don't know if that's permissible)


 * I guess we could put the ones we're "removing" in "Further Reading" instead of junking them - so as to avoid removing them altogether ?


 * - Begoon (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, it might not be really accurate. Has that been done before in any other articles? It might sound a little like a research paper or essay. Bejinhan  Talk   13:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I've never seen it done, and I wouldn't know how to. As you say it sounds inaccurate (and wrong). Probably best thing to do is:
 * Prune the list to what we have above
 * Convert to a named reference
 * Link it at the end of each paragraph (WP:REF says that's ok)


 * And on reflection, I don't think the further reading idea is good either - we should just be bold and remove them if we think they are there in error. If anyone wants to restore them, they can put them inline in the proper place, because they would need to know what they are to wish to restore them.


 * But I think, first, I'll leave this discussion here for a few days in case the activity spurs anyone else into commenting - after all, the problem has been there for over 9 months - so waiting a few days for valuable input can't hurt. -  Begoon (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, those suggestions sound good. I support it. Someone might come along with other suggestions and comments so best to put in on hold. Bejinhan  Talk   05:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are any objections... so it should be quite ok to edit the refs. Also, the 2nd sentence in that section doesn't seem to have any connection with the previous. Any thoughts on that? Bejinhan  Talk   02:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd say, just keep it as it is. It's not doing harm, and apparently that large reference does give verifiability to the section. If you actually want to fix the problem, then I suggest writing a new prehistory section based on reliable sources - but I don't see any merit in spending time 'sorting this out'.  Chzz  ► 07:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think what you say has merit. Since, in its current form, that giant ref purports to support just this sentence: "Anthropologists support the notion that the Proto-Malays originated from what is today Yunnan, China", the way to "fix it" would be to replace that sentence with a well sourced alternative. I'm not convinced that leaving it as it is is correct, simply for the reason that if I came here as a reader, clicked on the inline ref link for that sentence, and was presented with that giant list - I would be extremely confused by it, and by the number of items in it that seemed, from their titles, to be unrelated. Surely, as well as providing sources in the article, we should make an effort to make sure a reader is able to understand and easily follow those sources. As the hypothetical reader, I wouldn't know where to begin, presented with that list as the source for that sentence. It's surely better than it was before you altered it, and consolidated the inline link markers, because that change cleaned up the article body - my concern is assisting a reader who wishes to follow the source reasoning. -  Begoon (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a thought I had. Perhaps there could be a "Bibliography" section? Bejinhan  Talk   05:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea - keeps all the book titles, which it would be a shame to lose -  Begoon (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So... what's the decision? Keep in bibliography section, delete, or leave it as it is? Bejinhan   talks   03:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well - I found this: http://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=jbs.2010.71.83&org=11 which may help to rewrite that sentence to remove the need for all those refs to it. Hopefully I'll get a bit more time to think about it soon. I still like the idea of keeping any book refs not needed there any more in a bibliography.  Begoon  talk  03:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I glanced through it a little bit, it looks good. Maybe I'll work on it later. After all the referencing the other day, I've had enough of it... this article is very unreferenced. Bejinhan   talks   11:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Largest cities of Malaysia
The largest cities infobox under the demographics section needs to be updated. Please view for the current 2010 calculation. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 15:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Human rights scandal in Malasya
Malaysia have became a radical integrist muslim dictatorship. Country is under fierce coran law. Homosexuality is a crime. Having a simple kiss between two same sex ppl carries 20 year imprisonment. Non heterosexual sex act is punished with death penalty.

Any depict of homosexuality in books, radio shows, tv shows, cinema or any other media is a crime unless it consisting in a depiction of homosexuality as a undesirable sex behaviour. Human rights association have been consistently scared to refrain from doing any campaign in the country to change that hate against homosexuality.

Sharia radical integrist muslim courts are the only ones ruling the country. So even citizens not being muslim are punished if they do anything forbidden by islam.

Constitution falsely gives religion freedom, but building any building related to any religion different from islam is almost impossible as it is blocked by government and muslim colaborationists. Malaysia is by those and many other reasons not a safe country for any modern developed country citizen. Homosexual individuals are adviced to not travel to malaysia by any means.

Associations for developing countries have consistenly pushe for Malaysia to be economically sanctioned and their exports banned until those and other legal issues are overcome. Made in Malaysia products are called to be banned in any developed country, and manufacturers are advice to not produce in Malaysia as that may carry undesirable poor image to their products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekingu (talk • contribs) 02:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Malaysia has a bad rights record but the presentation above is maliciously misleading. While it is true that homosexuality is a crime, it is a crime under the secular Penal Code rather than Syariah law. Syariah law applies only to Muslims only and its jurisdiction is limited to family and inheritance law.


 * In practice, homosexuality is generally tolerated and homosexual people are rarely prosecuted. The most high profile case is arguably more a case of political prosecution rather than one of active persecution of people with alternative lifestyles.


 * I am not sure what the purpose of the comments above were. Legitimate human rights abuses already exist in Malaysia. We do not need exaggerated and fake ones to highlight them. In fact, by making such allegations do nothing to help raise awareness of the actual abuses of human rights that occur in this country. - Bob K | Talk 03:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My dad's a lawyer, according to him, homosexuality isn't illegal. According to the current civil laws, only sodomy the act of inserting 'something' into the anus is a crime punishable by law. It is one of a long decadent list of obsolete set of legislation implemented in Malaysia along with the draconian Internal Security Act, Fellatio etc. Shariah courts were given a shot in the arm in the 1980's, its jurisdiction curbed as its decisions cannot in practise be overturned by the supposedly 'supreme courts of the land', it was Mahathir Mohamad's bid for political consolidation and expediency among the Muslim populace of Malaysia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fookjian95 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Borders
The source I usually use for borders,, does not include some pages on Malaysia, which is highly unlucky. However, on page 525 it discusses issues on the border with Singapore, the border being discussed I assume on one of the missing pages. I cannot find a direct source saying "Malaysia has a border with the Philippines" or "Malaysia has a border with Vietnam" (albeit a disputed border), which I think is what is being looked for, but plenty of sources discuss things like "border security". Anyway, if all the borders need to be sourced, would it be better to remove the sources from the lead and add them to a description of borders that can be added to the geography section? Placing it in the geography section additionally allows the ability to discuss the border issus at a greater length. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. You added the Philippines, and a source, with the comment that you didn't know how to format it. So I formatted it for you, and commented that it was an odd source for a geographical fact, and that if we were going to have a source there then a better one would be nice. I don't really understand what you're asking. If it's a fact it should be included - if it isn't, it shouldn't. I don't personally know if Malaysia is generally considered to "have a border" with the Philippines, but since you added it, presumably you do think it is. If that source is your only reason for thinking so, then I don't think it's a particularly strong source for the subject matter. If that's not the reason you think so, then what is? I apologise if I'm displaying my ignorance, but since I don't know the answer I'll have to hope someone comes along who does.  Begoon &#149; talk  16:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I didn't answer the other part - yes, I think sourcing in the Geography section instead of the lead would be fine. Some people argue that the lead should "stand alone" as a mini-article, but that doesn't really come into play until you're going for FA, and even then it's debatable.  Begoon &#149; talk  16:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I worded that terribly. My fault.
 * Malaysia definitely has a maritime border with the Philippines, search "Malaysia Philippine Border Security" on google to get tons of hits. The website I added was the only one I could find with a direct statement that there was a border, but there must be one out there. What I'm really asking for is opinions on what the lead should say, and whether we need to place all the sources there (begins to look cluttered in my opinion). Anyway, I think borders are generally not information that needs to be sourced. I'm not sure whether a section on border disputes should go in foreign relations or geography. And if someone can find a nice source that lists both land and maritime borders (CIA only lists land) that would be very good. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Well the lead should include what most articles include, then. Personally, when I see the term "border", I think of a land border - otherwise, per reductio ad absurdum, United Kingdom would need to mention France etc, which seems bizarre. Indonesia is an FA, and it lists land borders, then mentions some "neighbouring countries". Singapore doesn't list any land borders, because it doesn't have any. Thailand lists land borders, but then mentions "maritime boundaries" which looks like a nice, unambiguous way of doing it to me. Seems to me the norm is to keep the term "borders" for land borders, then mention other significant neighbours separately, if desired. I agree that sourcing borders in the lead seems over the top - particularly when the article includes a relevant map - but I also agree with what seems to be fairly common practice of "border" meaning "land border". Seems less potentially confusing that way. Significant border disputes, as you say, could be either in geography, or foreign relations (cross referenced if you like) - but in that case a source describing the dispute would seem preferable. Begoon &#149; talk 10:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the best answer to where to appropriately put the border dispute stuff was staring us in the face - not Politics, not Geography, in neither of which it really sat well, but Geography_of_Malaysia. Begoon &#149; talk 15:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I wrote that short for this article, it could probably use large expansion where it sits now. A cursory glance over other articles suggests borders should be in the geography section, but in a short concise statement (similar to the lead). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right - there should be a sentence in the Geography section. GA criteria say you can't have something in the lead that isn't covered in the article. Even after I trimmed what you'd written, though, it was still close to 1/3 of the whole section at its new reduced size which is imo far too much proportionately. Would you like to write something concise? I can't think of anything to say there other than just repeating the content from the lead.  Begoon &#149; talk  16:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it would take up 1/3, but then the whole section is too small anyway. I'm going to leave it for when I have time to try and make the geography section more expansive (for reasons you've just mentioned). Hopefully though, someone else will do that first, saving me the work :) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. I added a short sentence on borders, and a cross reference to the sub article for now.  Begoon &#149; talk  16:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Bumiputra/National Language of Malaysia
... discussion moved from User talk:Begoon...

Its an english article and therefore must adhere to Standard English. Bumiputra is a Malay term and hence incompatible. Bahasa Malaysia is the national language as reverted frm Bahasa MElayu in 2007. Similar, to how BM is referred to Bahasa Indonesia in Indonesia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fookjian95 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker) Bumiputra is the only term available, and no "english" alternative exists. It is used in Malaysian English, and has become a word of the english language, similar to the classic Luftwaffe example. As for Bahasa Malaysia/Melayu, that is debatable, as the note says. There is an argument for changing it though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, Chipmunk, I agree with him on the language, and I believe that we should also offer a translation for Bumiputra if we are going to use it as an irreplaceable term. Why does "indigenous" not work for you?
 * @Fookjian - I'll assume the IP edits were yours. Thanks for the reply. I agree that the English terms should be used now that you've explained your edit. The problem with just reverting people with no explanation is that it is edit warring. Now that I understand why you want to make the edit, I'll do it for you so that you don't violate WP:3RR. It's always best to follow WP:BRD.  Begoon &#149; talk  12:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Bumiputra is the official term used, and therefore I think it should be used. Of course, no objection to an explanation of what that term means (actually, great support of it). Fookjian posted on my talk page, with the data for the changes the IP (who was them I assume) made. Seems solid. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I'll make an alteration to Bumiputra, and you can sort out the stuff on your talk page. Does that keep everyone happy? (I already altered the language)  Begoon &#149; talk  13:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys for understanding cause I aren't familiar with Wiki procedures. Just to clear my point, Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and hence must adhere to international english standards which by nature is Standard British English. There's an equivalent of orang asli in English and that is Indigenous people. Bumiputera is a politically-connived term, it doesn't exist in the English vocabulary.

As for the national language, a quick reference to Malay articles will explain. Here's a quick reference http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/11/6/nation/19386873&sec=nation

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2007&ey=2010&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=548&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=53&pr.y=13will Latest World Bank statistics.

As for HDI,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pristino/Human_Development_Index,_2010

I hope i can clear the ambiguous cloud. So very very very sorry guys if i created a misunderstanding. peace :)Fookjian95 (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)fookjian95


 * No problem - just try to remember to discuss before reverting a second time, and use descriptive edit summaries. That way there is less likely to be another misunderstanding in future. Thanks  Begoon &#149; talk  13:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I forgot to thank you for posting all the links - that certainly gave me a better understanding of the situation, even though I can sometimes be a little slow to see the big picture. Thank you. :)  Begoon &#149; talk  15:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the standard international lingua franca should be the only language to be used in English articles especially in international forums. Wikipedia is international and not a Malaysian-only website. Bumiputra is a politically-connived term that isn't recognised beyond the shores of Malaysia. Not in Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Melayu (Brunei). More importantly, its a localised term not found in English dictionaries. etc http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bumiputra. We must use standard-bearing English. I believe only Indigenous people should be used in an English article as how Bumiputra can be used in Malaysian Malay ones. The 'orang asli' here is exactly like the 'maori' tribes of New Zealand both from prehistoric times. Hence both should be referred as Indigenous people. Perhaps we have differing political views, its okay, we can iron this out logically and amicably. Fookjian95 (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Fookjian95


 * It's not a political position I'm arguing from - I have no view on Malaysian politics. It's purely one of accuracy and fullness of information. Bumiputera means more than just indigenous people - it means " indigenous people of the Malay Archipelago. " Furthermore, the term has unique usage due to the government's implemented economic policies designed to favour bumiputras - so it needs to be differentiated. Both terms are there, linked to bumiputera for explanation, and that's the only way I believe we can cover all the connotations in a couple of words in the infobox.   Begoon &#149; talk  13:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could add an explanation of what exactly a bumiputra is in the demographics section. Seems notable enough to be on this page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm going to alter it - because the source for those numbers (source is in Demographics section) says indigenous - and we should be true to the source. I was wrong - so edited my preceding comment. The term is still important enough to be discussed and explained - just not in relation to the sourced statistics.  Begoon &#149; talk  14:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Its a political term not so much a Malay vocab. Its also misconstrued as i'm in the perception that this policy only applies to Malaysians of Malay descent and the indigenous tribes of East Malaysia. I may be wrong, but being Malaysia empirically i don't think Indonesians are granted privileges o.O!? or do they? if so Malaysian ethnic minorities having ACTUAL citizenship have been ripped-off LOL! Thanks for the willingness to discuss dudes.Fookjian95 (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to interrupt, hope I am not butting in without missing out on the beginning of the argument or gist of the story. But I beg to differ with Fookjian95. Bumiputra is not interchangable with indigenous. Bumiputra, although might have been derived politically, is a unique term (proper noun) similar to Mercedes Benz, or as what Chipmunkdavis said, Luftwaffe. By not allowing this term to be used, is as though not allowing the use of the term 'Apartheid' for the case of South Africa, which is from the language of Afrikaans.
 * Besides, standard English (based on what, Oxford Dictionary? Cambridge Dictionary?) could not have caught up with all the proper nouns that crops up every day in our life. And there are a lot of scientific terms, language and culture names that is used as proper noun (instead of common noun that is thought in this discussion) and does not exist in those dictionaries.
 * And I do not think we are in the position of finding an equivalent term in English for Bumiputra, and that is if it even exists. For example, how would one find an equivalent term for Rambutan or Vodka?
 * And wouldnt defining Bumiputra in the Bumiputra wikipedia article as term coined by Malaysian politician to described certain group of people is sufficient in this case to clarify that it is not similar to indigenous? --Danazach (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Moreover, wikipedia is not in the position of deciding which term is politically derived, or whether Bumiputra is racist. Wikipedia should stand firm in using a term that is used officially and conventionally. That is, until that term is deemed derogatory or politically incorrect by Malaysian government (for example Negro), wikipedia will stick to the stand of being neutral. --Danazach (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No - you are perfectly correct, Danazach, as far as I can see. The description in the demographics section covers it - which I have left intact. The infobox still needed altering to match the source it came from, though. Bumiputra in all make up over half the population as far as I can tell, because it includes the Malays (50.4%) plus the indigenous others (11%).  Begoon &#149; talk  14:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I must admit that I'm rather in a dark as to why or how this discussion came about. Bumiputra is not the same as indigenous. Bumiputras includes the Malays and natives(indigenous people). So my question is, are we trying to change the word indigenous in the infobox to Bumiputra? Bejinhan   talks   04:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No. It used to have the term in it, and there was a bit of a revert war about removing it, resulting in lots of lovely confusion and this discussion which started on my talk page = so I moved it here. At least all of the attention on it brought to light the fact that the actual figures in the infobox didn't match the source, so I was able to correct them at the same time as fixing the terminology to match too. Another benefit for me was that I now properly understand the term, which I didn't before. It's all good, now, I think.  Begoon &#149; talk  05:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok. The discussion here was a bit "messy". Bejinhan   talks   06:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that tends to happen here, under certain circumstances, doesn't it? :)  Begoon &#149; talk  07:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed slightly messy, but everyone came out intact. Speaking of your epiphany on Bumiputra Begoon, feel like adding that epiphany in a sentence in the demographics section? I feel that it is not that well explained there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well in fact, it was reading that section that actually explained it to me. I can't immediately see a better way to reword it, without making it even more complex. In fact, the linked article bumiputra says that the term is not actually used in the constitution, rather the terms Malay, native, and aborigine, so I've altered that part a little and added the inline cites.  Begoon &#149; talk  10:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Rating
Does anyone else think it is worth having this article re-rated, or at least peer-reviewed? The July peer review has been pretty much addressed. The only item that may not be fully addressed is "My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way", which I think may apply to the subsections of Economy and Demographics. There is the possibility of removing the individual subsections, as especially in economy comparable high quality articles often do not include such subsections, especially in Economy (see here). Of course, if anyone feels any or all of these subsections are very important to Malaysia, they are welcome to try an integrate it into the lead in some way, noting that "It does not have to be a whole sentence, it can be just a phrase or a word". Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably, yes. I did a GA review for Malvern College recently, so while the process was fresh in my mind, I quickly ran through this page as it is now.
 * The issues I came up with were:
 * Would probably benefit from a general copy edit (I can do some of that in the next week or so.) (*)
 * Copy edit should include check for any remnants of POV or OR statements, and check for any overlinking (*)
 * Stability - minor edit wars recent, but generally with POV anons, and quickly resolved. (this is probably not a big issue - and not in our control, anyway)
 * Expand lead section to cover other content. (*)
 * Broad coverage is basically a pass - but a short Sport section may be worth considering as common in similar articles (not sure though, I know little about Malaysia's sporting culture)


 * Not checked - all references need to be WP:RS and support the content. (*)
 * Not checked - all images need to be correctly licensed and relevant to the content. (*)


 * I think if we addressed those especially those marked (*) it would be possible to get it to GA (peer review first would be advisable).


 * Note that the copy edit is not a criticism in any way of the work you have done - just the application of the general principle that major changes are generally improved by someone who didn't write the original copy running through for typos/grammar/style.


 * I'm not in favour of trimming just to avoid including in the lead - I think it's a good size now.  Begoon &#149; talk  17:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify my comment on article size - at 90Kb, as it is now, it is smaller than most of the featured country articles, which tend to range from 100 - 150. Still bigger than the recommended size to consider splitting (60 Kb) - but countries are big subjects, that's just a guideline and states that bigger subjects can justify longer articles, and we are following precedent, so using that reasoning I like the current size  Begoon &#149; talk  06:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure exactly what a correct license is, does that just mean they must be licensed? As for relevance, my only concern would be the picture of Kota Kinabalu in the Geography section, and the Petronas towers and maybe the beach photo in economy, all of which do have some relevance but could be replaced by pictures with more relevance.
 * Only content edit war occurred after I included information that Mount Kinabalu was the highest in southeast asia. I've since removed the sentence of its discussion about height differences, so that should be stable.
 * All I know about Malaysian sport is that they are in love with the English Premier League! And I agree peer review would be good. I didn't mean to appear overly forward in this discussion, it just irks me that this article is rated B-class, and lately I've been seeing some other B-class articles, and they are really bad. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You were certainly not over forward. As I said, I don't think it's a huge task to get this to GA now. Yes, licensing just means they need to be correctly licensed images - I can check that, too since it's my field. I noticed you added some alt text - that's good, because accessibility is a point I forgot to mention above, but that a reviewer is likely to pick up on. I'll find a day next week to do a general copyedit, and check the images/refs. I'm going to fix a couple of typos in the bit you added to the lead now, though, because it's the lead - thanks for adding that bit. If we can't find anything worth saying about sport then that is likely to mean there is no point trying to cover it, I suppose.  Begoon &#149; talk  04:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll avoid licenses, I automatically associate them with legal babble. I'm going to have to take a look at the recent change to language when I'm more awake, I always though Manglish was more of a slang than an official language, and was difference to the official teachings of English in Malaysia. One more issue, should we remove all "Melaka"'s and replace them with "Malacca"? Malacca is the name of the Malacca page, so that's why I'm leaning towards that. (Currently 5 Melaka's in History section) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Malacca, yes, I agree. The language addition, whilst good, is unsourced and probably a bit long. With regards to Manglish, I think you're correct - it is colloquial, and Malaysian English is not the same thing, so I'll alter that now. I'm more concerned about sourcing it all than the length, but when I copyedit there are likely to be ways it can be condensed a little.  Begoon &#149; talk  05:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many unsourced sections, so I think we have got to get them sourced before we re-peer review it. And the lead, as Begoon said, it needs to be worked on. The lead has to be a summary of every topic in the article, and if it is a summary, we don't need refs for the lead. It differs from person to person, but I have heard that some reviewers are particular about refs in the lead. Bejinhan   talks   05:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As you say, opinions differ on refs in the lead. I've seen it argued for FA that they should be there, because the lead should be able to stand alone, as a "mini article". Personally, I prefer it without, and sourced in the main content - it looks much neater. There shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't referred to in the main content (that IS a requirement) - so if we satisfy that requirement, then there is automatically a place in the text for each inline citation. Begoon &#149; talk 06:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've run through the article again, adding here and there. Perhaps slightly excessively in some areas, but if all of these get done hopefully the sourcing of the article will be acceptable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also to clarify, I was not complaining about the length of the article per se. I was asking for others opinions on the weights of the current divisions. For example, something like transport and energy may not be that important for someone trying to get an overview of Malaysia. On the other hand, a proper expansion of culture, which is in my opinion one of the fascinating things about Malaysia, would seem like something much more worthy of being on this page. Sports for example, could go there. Of course, I don't think any of this would stop it achieving a status higher than B-class. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Malaysians are possibly proud of Transport and Energy in a regional context. Perhaps someone could confirm that. If so, it probably makes them notable enough to keep. I don't feel particularly strongly about it, either way, though. A reviewer might think History and Culture are too long to read comfortably without subheadings. Also, citizenship is very short - if we don't have anything to add to it, maybe that could just be a see also link from the main section?  Begoon &#149; talk  10:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, as a Malaysian, I am not that proud of Transport and Energy so as to think that topic deserves a long paragraph. I don't know... that's just my personal opinion anyway. A mention of it would be good, but I don't think it needs such a long paragraph. Bejinhan   talks   11:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think history as it stands is nicely divided paragraph wise noting my bias in being the person who wrote the current version, basically:
 * Pre-european
 * Colonialism to WWII
 * WWII and independence
 * Early independence and ethnic strife
 * Recent
 * The last two could be combined and shortened perhaps, but I don't think it needs subsections. Culture may need subsections, and I think if subsections are introduced it would be a good idea to expand the whole culture section further. Can't think of anything else to add to citizenship, so maybe move that in somewhere, perhaps when discussing ethnicities in Malaysia? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Somewhere in the "Demographics" section? Bejinhan   talks   11:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to know where to relocate that content to - looking again, the stuff about Visas for East Malaysia is already in Subdivisions, so we can cut that, and yes, the only place the rest seems to fit is Demographics where ethnicity is discussed.

On subsections that's another one where opinions differ. Some feel you shouldn't need them at all in a good article. I agree that History reads well if you read it all through. My concern is that some readers just come to look up a particular fact, and with the headings you lay out above, it might be intuitively simpler to find a fact on, say, early independence if it was subsectioned, than having to read all the way through. It probably wouldn't be a pass/fail issue - and if it was it's very easily altered - so bearing all that in mind we could omit them for now. Begoon &#149; talk 11:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Subsection wise the use of titles to help people find things like independence Reductio ad absurdum leads to funny places. If I'm trying to find a specific piece of information in an article, I just ctrl+f, but this may be more usable for me as I use chrome. What we could do to help skimming is to reword the beginning of paragraphs to give a content idea, eg for 2nd and 4th paragraphs:

Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2nd: European claims in Malaysia began with...
 * 4th: Independence was in the beginning marred with...
 * That would be better, yes. Instinctively, I don't like "marred by" because it could seem a bit POV-ish, but I guess it's accurate enough, given the events, so that's probably just me being over sensitive.  Begoon &#149; talk  12:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I worry that I have personified independence, but I suggest we leave that for now till you go through with your copyediting. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The economy of the country has, traditionally, been fuelled by its natural resources, but is now also expanding rapidly in the sectors of science, tourism, commerce and medical tourism.


 * "Traditionally, been, fuelled by its natural resources" and "also expanding rapidly" sounds POV-ish to me. Chipmunkdavis, you added it in so is it okay if I copyedit it? Bejinhan   talks   12:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as POV (especially not the traditionally) but most of my edits need copyediting. If it wasn't for WP:SARCASM I would have told you that I would never let you copyedit! Just make sure you try to keep an explicit mention of the titles, as stated in the July peer review. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, although Chipmunkdavis added it, I altered it, and added "rapidly" but I don't like it much. If you can improve it, please do, as far as I'm concerned.  Begoon &#149; talk  12:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the word marred came directly from the CIA world factbook, as did that whole sentence. CIA: "The first several years of the country's history were marred by a Communist insurgency, Indonesian confrontation with Malaysia, Philippine claims to Sabah, and Singapore's secession from the Federation in 1965. " Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok, if you like it better than my current version, put it back. It's only a niggle at the back of my mind that says I don't like it, nothing major. Begoon &#149; talk 13:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, current version is fine. CIA has a lot of statistics, which could be useful for sourcing or adding into the article. I'm slightly suspicious about their claim the Malaysian flag is based off the US one though :p Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well since the US flag is red, white and blue, one has to wonder where they possibly got that idea from. Mind you, it will be a busy meeting that discusses all the nations in that category.  Begoon &#149; talk  13:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be busy wouldn't it. Anyway, that apparent fact isn't on the actual Flag of Malaysia page, so no bother. Any ideas for dividing up the Culture section? Could have a section for Ethnicities (easily split off as is), Music and other art, and English Premier League sports. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be good. That section is too long and could use some subsections. How about ethnicities, art and holidays & festivals? You'll have me dancing on the roof if include EPL. Bejinhan   talks   13:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)  Sorry, strike that out. I've been budging in too much. :p  Bejinhan   talks   13:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Budging in too much? I don't see how. I like the idea of a holidays (and festivals) section (there was one before, but I removed it). I'm beginning to worry about overlap between ethnicities and the other categories though, as I'm sure that much of the holidays and art information will be about influences from different cultures. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the bit you struck about sports, though (I struck the other part of your comment that must have been an error, because it could never possibly be true, hope you don't mind) - do you know enough about it even to give a list of what sports are important enough to include? And in all seriousness if the EPL is that massively popular, there's quite possibly justification for a reference to that if the pre-embryonic section ever gets off the ground. I really know practically zero about this, despite my being the one who punted the idea. If there just isn't enough to make a worthwhile section, we probably shouldn't force the issue.  Begoon &#149; talk  13:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the most popular sport is soccer; people there go crazy during the league, the cable channels advertise how amazing their coverage is, coke designs cans reflecting soccer, etc. The next sport I can think of is badminton, of which Malaysia is world class. It also has a famous F1 formula circuit. Cricket may also deserve a mention, though not a large one. Sports like Dragon Boat Racing could also be included. Wow, I had no idea I could put that out. Maybe that is a good idea for a section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that sounds like enough to make a start to me, once we describe those things, and some detail on local leagues etc. for those sports it starts to feel like a worthwhile paragraph at least. Olympics is usually de rigeur here, too, but I haven't checked if there's anything significant there.  Begoon &#149; talk  14:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of having a sports subsection. Soccer is big here. Especially EPL, but not the local teams. Will there be enough sources for a paragraph about soccer-madness? :p Badminton is also a popular sport... and I'm not sure about cricket. Hockey is popular but we don't have much news about local cricket. Bejinhan   talks   14:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said above, given the seeming enormity of it, it probably demands a mention. How about we let you write that bit, and then check it for WP:OVERFANCRUFT ?


 * Sad thing, I actually don't know anything about local Malaysian soccer teams. I don't even know about the competitions, or if there even is one (though I assume there must be). I've not heard the cricket team discussed much in Malaysia, but I've read about it elsewhere. They're okay, but arguably not important enough for this article. I know nothing about hockey from inside Malaysia or out. That leaves soccer, F1 racing, badminton, as major. Rankings/history in the Olympics and the Commonwealth games should be mentioned, maybe south east asian games too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Note for Begoon's massive copyedit (or anyone else who wants to edit), the Culture section as it is has a lot of information that should not be under Culture, but rather demographics, especially the bits about the indigenous people...pretty much the whole first three paragraphs in fact. Merging that information into demographics would probably be advisable, although that doesn't preculde more sections being added in the meantime. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Omissions...
There's a whole section devoted to Tourism (with no hard statistical info on this sector's contribution to the economy) and a whole paragraph (!?!?!) for the nascent space program, yet no mention of the official so-called "positive" discrimination against almost 40% of the population. Ketuanan Melayu and Malaysian New Economic Policy anyone? --Merbabu (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

However, putting in words such as "so-called positive discrimination" would be definitely POV and this is not a political forum. Bejinhan  talks   13:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for the form template for beginners - but I have been here since 2006 with X thousand edits, so no need to tell me how to suck eggs. As for your last sentence, please AGF. I presume your response implies that this is a significant omission? thanks --Merbabu (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The second link mentions that policy ended in 1990, so maybe a brief mention in the early part of the Economy section, with more detail on the Economy page? As for the statistics, yes cold facts would be good. The content on Tourism Malaysia is worded like a radio advert, but I suspect I'll be compelled to hack away at that when I do the general copyedit I'm planning for this week, unless someone does that bit first. The first link certainly seems worthy of a mention, probably in the Politics section(?), with more detail on the Politics page. Does that sound reasonable?  Begoon &#149; talk  13:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The demographics section mentions that there is a distinction between Bumiputras and others, and that Bumiputras have more constitutional rights. I assume information about this could go in either demographics or politics if added. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merbabu, oh yes, I see. Funny, why you raised those points here without attempting a fixation. Bejinhan   talks   14:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merbabu posted a similar comment on Talk:History of Malaysia too. I suppose if they really feel its a huge omission they'll fix it somehow. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

So, it seems you are all supportive of inclusion? --Merbabu (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends of what... a specific proposal would be good, but there is no objection to the information being included. Try to keep it sourced though, don't need more 's ;) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is GREEN the new RED?
Can somebody please rectify the Location Malaysia ASEAN map in the article infobox? I'm having trouble finding Malaysia according to the map legend. Or maybe green is the new  red .CoolCityCat (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The map was changed in accordance with the new Legend. Try clearing the cache? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the map/caption were altered to be in line with the Malaysian state pages - a simple refresh will usually be enough to get the latest version, but if that fails, as suggested, bypass the cache.  Begoon &#149; talk  04:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead statement
per WP:BRD, I reverted a change to the lead statement. It was replaced with an edit comment implying I was "twisting facts", which is a bit strong imo. Nevertheless, on reviewing it, I agree that the statement "officially an Islam State" may be best removed unless explained/sourced/qualified. However, the word "boasts" is unnecessary and flowery, and "facade"/"harmonious" are ambiguous, possibly WP:OR respectively. I'll let someone else deal with it since there appears to be an issue with my interpretation of WP:BRD. Perhaps the term Muslim might be more acceptable, since this is a common concern I note in the edit history of both the original editor, Fookjian, and the IP editor reinserting the change (who may be the same editor, logged out - but that isn't clear), with regard to the implication of theocracy. Begoon &#149; talk 04:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your reading of WP:BRD is the same as mine, but keep in mind the editor(s) is/are new, and wikipedia policy is a complex jungle of random acronyms they've probably never heard of. I agree the new change is excessively flowery, but it is true that secularism in the Malaysian government is stronger than other islamic states. All the prime misters have stated that Malaysia could be secular at some point of another I think. I think maybe words like harmonious may be from the recent hariraya address, and the whole 1 campaign going around Malaysia now. Perhaps best to state that although islam it is administratively secular in a lot of ways. Not sure how to word that though, an expansion in the politics section on this would be useful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that words likes 'boasts' and 'harmoniously' should not be included in articles especially in the lead (see WP:PEA). Regarding the statement about M'sia being an Islamic state, I think that statement is not wrong, or we can reword and follow the words used in the constitution. Art 3 says that "Islam is the religion of the federation". e.g: "Art 3 of the Constitution provides that Islam is the religion of the federation." I also agree that the country is more administratively secular; however sharia laws does apply here, making the country semi-theocratic, or something like that. But i think the lead should not elaborate too much on this. ќמшמφטтгמ torque 06:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Boasts is unnecessary, and at worst could lead to "who is doing the boasting?" nonsense
 * Harmonious is POV, even if it's the POV of a speech. It's clearly not a universally accepted opinion, simply judging from the number of discussions just here.
 * Facade carries with it the undesirable connotation of a "false front". Again unnecessary and POV if interpreted that way, so best not used.
 * I like Kawaputra's idea of "The Constitution provides that Islam is the religion of the federation"


 * Aside from those points, anyone who has seen many of my contributions, will know that I am strongly against biting newcomers, and assuming any kind of bad faith, but no knowledge of acronyms or policy is necessary to know that an ungrounded implication that another editor is "twisting the facts" or "vetoeing" is wrong - other than common decency. Anyway - I've informed the IP editor of this discussion, and I've given my opinions, so I'll leave the rest of the discussion to proceed without me :-).  Begoon &#149; talk  07:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Facade" is an interesting word. To me, it implies pretending to be multicultural, which I'm not sure is the intent of the editor who used it. The now reverted additions were not good ones IMO, for the reasons discussed above.--Merbabu (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the original edit was reverted by me, and reinserted - the additions are currently still in the article, pending the conclusion of this discussion, which was requested in the last editor's edit summary. We should at least give him a reasonable opportunity to join the discussion he requested, and of which he was notified, before consensus is judged.  Begoon &#149; talk  08:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could state a balance, saying it is official along the lines of Kawaputra and then also noting its non-islamic areas. Maybe also removing it from the first paragraph to a more relevant area? My suggestion is to cut off the first paragraph after the population figures, and move the rest to the third paragraph, which I have collapsed below.

Malaysia's head of state is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, conventionally referred to as "the Head" or "the Agong". The Agong is an elected monarch chosen from one of the sultans from the Malaysian states. The head of government is the Prime Minister. Although the constitution of Malaysia regards it as an Islamic country and shariah courts exist, the government system is closely modelled on the Westminster parliamentary system and the legal system is based off English Common Law.

Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll support that. I'd prefer "defines" to "regards", just for the fact that a Constitution tends to define things rather than regard them, but that's possibly pedantic, and it's fine either way. Also works well in the context of that paragraph - good idea, it was never really "comfortable" where it was.  Begoon &#149; talk  09:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Maybe u can just amend one part to read: "...chosen from one of the rulers/heads of state from the Malay states within Malaysia." - because not all the rulers of the are known as sultans and since only the hereditary rulers of those 9 states are entitled to be the King. ќמшמφטтгמ torque 12:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

✅ Tried to include the amendments proposed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You are referring to the Islamic state edit? frankly there's no clause that states that Malaysia is Islamic. Tunku Abdul Rahman envisioned a free, democratic and secular Malaysia concurrently with Islam as state religion for ceremonial purposes. Even if you argue Malaysia isn't secular, the federal constitution is in itself not islamic.

A quick reference to the preamble of the constitutions of Malaysia and the Islamic Republic of Iran will shed some light on the topic. Iran's explicitly exclaims faith and piety in Allah while Malaysia's secures fundamental civil liberties and basic freedoms without reference to any god. Civil laws are the main source of civil jurisprudence in Malaysia so clearly it can't be an islamic state which by definition only recognises Islam and its creator along with laws derived form the Sunnah and Koran and not civil laws. The formulators of Malaya/Malaysia have never mentioned a theocracy ala Iran. The Alliance party who governed Malaysia intended to sanction Islam as the state religion for ceremonial purposes concurrently maintaining a secular state as reiterated in court ruling 1988. and also both the 1st/2nd Prime Minister's open letters to star in early 1990's) Islam, Bahasa Malaysia and the Constitutional Monarchies were meant to be ceremonially symbolic, giving recognition to Malaya's pre-colonial heritage. But well times have changed, the people grew conservative due to deliberate politicization of religion.

As for evidence: 1. The Alliance Memorandum submitted to the Reid Constitution Commission on 27 Sept 1956 clearly stated that “the religion of Malaya shall be Islam … and shall not imply that the state is not a secular state.”

2. When the Working Party, comprising the Alliance and the rulers’ representatives and the High Commissioner, met on 22 Feb 1957 to review the Reid Commission draft on the possibility of the provision on religion being misinterpreted, the Alliance and Umno chief Tunku Abdul Rahman assured the Working Party that “the whole Constitution was framed on the basis that the Federation would be a secular state.”

3. At the London Constitutional talks in May 1957, the Colonial Office did not object to the inclusion of an official religion after being assured by the Alliance leaders that they “had no intention of creating a Muslim theocracy and that Malaya would be a secular state.”

4. On behalf of the Alliance, (later Tun) Tan Siew Sin told the federal legislature that the inclusion of the official religion “… does not in any way derogate from the principle, which has always been accepted, that Malaya will be a secular state and that there would be complete freedom to practise any other religion.”

5. A year after Independence, on 1 May 1958, then Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman clarified in the Legislative Council that “I would like to make it clear that this country is not an Islamic state as it is generally understood. We merely provide that Islam shall be the official religion of the state.”

I would also like to quote Former Lord President Tun Mohamed Salleh Abas, in Che Omar bin Che Soh v Public Prosecutor (1988), stated that the term “Islam” in Article 3(1) refers to “only such acts as relate to rituals and ceremonies… the law in this country is … secular law.” Also, when interpreting a consitution we must not resort to plain reading of texts but refer to the circumstances during the time of formulation of the conssitution by our forefathers so as to grasp the gist or essence of what our forefathers wanted for Malaysia which certainly was not a theocratic country for Malaysia's is derived from melting pot of cultures. and sadly, yes we are only plural in facade. Sectarianism is too rampant in Malaysia in the immediate term for any "Malaysian first, Race second" political philosophy to take root.

You guys missedthe point, the entire reason for the reverting of Begoon's comment wasn't so much the language but the politically incorrect assertion that Malaysia's a full-fledge Islamic theocracy.

Anyway my mandarin sucks and i needa study for my secondary PMR exams thats underway, i hope you guys continue to engage in constructive consultations before resorting to any edits, especially integral ones that pertain to national ideology. I would like to convey my sincere apologies if my straight-to-the-point ways stirred up any emotions. Fookjian95 (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Argument from Fookjian on my talkpage

Malaysia political ideology There's no clause that states that Malaysia is Islamic. Tunku Abdul Rahman envisioned a free, democratic and secular Malaysia concurrently with Islam as state religion for ceremonial purposes. Even if you argue Malaysia isn't secular, the federal constitution is in itself not islamic.

A quick reference to the preamble of the constitutions of Malaysia and the Islamic Republic of Iran justifies my point. One exclaiming faith and piety in Allah while Malaysia's secures fundamental civil liberties and basic freedoms without reference to any god. Civil laws are the main source of civil jurisprudence in Malaysia so clearly it can't be an islamic state which by definition only recognises Islam and its creator along with its laws only in accordance to Allah and not civil laws.

BTW: Its best it stays this way as religion is personal between a person and god, its not the state's responsibility to govern how people want to live their own lives. Besides that, Iran is 99% muslim as compared to Malaysia's 62% with large non-muslim minorities. Imagine if muslims were subjected to Jewish or Buddhist laws, it would be unjust too right? Likewise, it would be unfair for non-muslimns to be subjected to muslim laws. Secularism is state neutrality on issues pertaining religion, which is ideal for a multi-religious society where values vary from religion to religion. Neutrality is paramount and serves as the best compromise for all. How a person wants to lead his life cannot be dictated by the government, moral values should be inculcated by parents from a tender age, since morality being subjective, hence morality should not be legislated or forced unto anyone. A person should be able to make their own choices for within the confines of personal spaces. For if god gives human free will to do good or bad, the state should respect that right too.Fookjian95 (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The main issue here seems to be the interpretation that being islamic means being a huge islamic theocracy governed by Shariah Law. Of course Malaysia is not a theocracy, but its more Islamic than Turkey, which has no official religion. The constitution explicitly states "Islam is the religion of the Federation", in act III. Of course, it allows other religions to be practiced without hindrance. I personally felt that the sentiments were captured by stating it was islamic followed by the however describing the basis for its secular laws. I feel it should be mentioned, possibly rewritten to
 * "Although the Malaysia's official religion is Islam and shariah courts exist, the government system is closely modelled..."
 * Anyway, before any claims are made here or there about the constitution, here it is. I found articles 3, 8, 11, 12, number 10 of article 150, and the statement in article 161 the the constitution cannot be simply altered in reference to religion to be relevant. The article defining Malay's as Muslims is found at article 160 if anyones interested. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll briefly comment here to thank Fookjian for showing up to discuss this as I requested. I shan't, as I explained in that request, be participating in the discussion, because, in the light of my motives being questioned with my first edit, I feel it's best I recuse from this. But having requested he join the discussion it's only decent to thank him, and I'm a great believer in civility, and decency, so, thanks...  Begoon &#149; talk  13:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right Malaysia's despite her mutlti-racial makeup Malaysia is very islamic for its ilk. I was pleasantly surprised to see that places like Indonesia having Playboy magazines, while Morocco even publishes homo ones 0.0 and secular Tunisia, Jordan and Syria where despite 90% muslim are very respectful and tolerant of personal liberties. Malaysia's was severely islamised under the tenure of Mahathir. If it was 1985, no one would dare dispute that Malaysia wasn't secular. I personally advocate secularism but I don't really care to propagate it nor bother to fight over it because I'm pretty much contented with the status-quo except for the fact Beyonce got rejected TWICE (pffft. so 'secular' =.=) The country has diverted from its secular roots, theoretically secular but in a practical sense, the secular values advocated by the earlier Prime Ministers have been compromised. I wanna reiterate, the actual motive for the inscription of Islam as s.religion, reinstatement of a constitutional monarchy was NOT to make Malaysia more islamic, but rather to keep the ceremonial, cultural traditions of pre-colonial Malaya alive. I don't think the state religion of the country is any so important as to warrant being listed on the lead statement. Its already mentioned that Islam is the state religion in the religion sub-topic of the page. And that should suffice. You can refer to any other wiki pages of moderate muslim countries and none would have Islam pasted so prominently on its lead statement. Even if you had to ammend it, i suggest you do it in the religion column as "Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as the state religion.", exactly how Tunku and Hussein Onn phrased it back in the day. I hope chipmunkdavis that you read my post on your page about the importance of secularism in a multi-racial country. And btw, article 160 was ammended in the 1980's by the the dictatorial Mahathir Mohamed who to suit himself who is essentially Indian (he stated his ethnicity as 'Indian' during his tenure at NUS university) as so that he would be 'included' as a malay.

And this is a public discourse of course Begoon you're welcome to engage, I never once doubted your good faith, but however your integration of the phrase "Malaysia is an Islam state" without prior debate was abit unwarranted.

All in all, just leave it the way it is now. There's no need to state explicitly whether Malaysia's ideology is secular or otherwiseFookjian95 (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC) -
 * Just to clarify - I didn't introduce that phrase. I reinserted it along with some other copy editing. It had been in the article a long time, although it may have been moved, or rewritten. If you're not certain of how edits were introduced - you can check the edit history in future to avoid confusion like that, if you like. And yes, I could participate, but in the light of being accused, bewilderingly, of "twisting facts" and "vetoing", I'm recusing here as I'd rather not be involved. I'm sure the other editors here will help you to reach a consensus that is good, factual, and not OR or POV.  Begoon &#149; talk  15:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Transport
@Chipmunkdavis:

Sorry about your ref formatting - you must have been doing that while I was editing, and I pasted the wrong version back in. I didn't see a "number of international airports" on your reference, so maybe it's me who's going blind. Anyway, my reference doesn't explicitly say it, but that is the International Airports page, and there are 5 airports linked and available in that section...(update - actually it does say it, you just have to watch the little slideshow at the top until the right image comes around) However, it is possible there is one they don't run, I suppose. Malaysia Airports Berhad don't run every airport in the country, it turns out, I initially thought they did.

Actually, with the number of airports I'm confused too, now. After my edit we have the following conflicting numbers:
 * Malaysia article: 5
 * List_of_airports_in_Malaysia: 7
 * Transport in Malaysia : 6

So seems like we may need an even better source - although it could just be case of different people considering different airports "international". I think airports are very keen to tag that on the name as soon as they have any overseas flights at all as a PR thing - so perhaps a couple are "disputed". Maybe if we can't find anything better we'll have to fall back to "several" until we do. Begoon &#149; talk 16:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have searched and can't find any explicit statements about the number, my source just had a list of Malaysian airports, and listed 6 of them as international airports. As you said, it probably depends on the definition of international airport. It could be changed to "several international and domestic airports" but that's too vague for my personal taste. Another option would be just to throw some statistic out about KLIA, it's a fairly important regional and to an extent international airport, although this may be just a random promotion of KLIA. We could also just delete the sentence, although I feel in an overview of transport air transport should be mentioned in some way. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sultan Ismail International Airport is the offender. It's in your ref but not mine. I think I'll just change it back to your ref and 6, because although that airport is actually in my ref as domestic, it also says: "to cater to the increasing inflow of tourists to Kelantan." If anyone wants to alter it because they have better info, then great - otherwise I think that'll do.  Begoon &#149; talk  18:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Economy section...
The economy section is unbalanced and provides undue weight to certain sections. This is not so much a bias or neutrality problem, rather a coverage problem. It covers a few specific topics and discusses them in excessive detail (eg, Tourism, Energy). Yet, these are only one of many aspects to the economy. My suggestions for starters is the following. Not necessarily in this order, although the order actually isn’t that bad. Most only need a sentence each…


 * Description of pre-Colonial economy – needs only 1 or 2 well crafted sentences.
 * Description of colonial economy – needs only 1 or 2 well crafted sentences
 * Nominal GDP & world rank (remove GDP PPP which is meaningless – GDP per capita PPP is however significant).
 * Nominal and PPP GDP per capita and respective ranks.
 * Three (or maybe 4) largest destinations of export with %’s of each
 * Three (or maybe 4) largest sources of imports with %’s of each
 * Multinational organisations (ASEAN etc)
 * Quantified level of govt vs. private activity in economy. (% of GDP is a good start)
 * What happened to Race issues in Malaysia? (is it really Less important than stating Malaysia’s a “centre or hub” for biotech, health care, and Islamic banking?)
 * Size of services, industry and agriculture as %’s of GDP (ie, adds up to 100%)
 * Size of services, industry and agriculture as %’s of employment (ie, adds up to 100%)
 * Then, list the major areas of services, industry and agriculture – ie, what are the 3 or 4 biggest of each of these.
 * Trade surplus/deficit? Or general trend as monthly/annual figures can be meaningless out of context.
 * Poverty levels over the last few decades.
 * A well structured sentence on income/wealth distribution – not the whole paragraph of statistics which I removed a few days ago (on the other hand, this info could be represented nicely in graphical form – instead of the pictures of idyllic beach scene, modern freeway and futuristic skyscrapers (sure, this article is not as bad as some!).
 * Chop down the other sub-sections and delete the tourism section (see below) which might even become simply paragraphs instead.

I'm not saying that will make the perfect economy section, but it's a good start. regards --Merbabu (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Been looking through FA countries, the only ones that include economy subsections are Japan (with the 1 understandable science and technology section), and the chronically oversubsectioned Germany. I'd say if the subsections are removed, instead of just deleting the subsections, moving them to the main Economy article. I'm in favour of removing the Transportation and Energy section myself. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete the Tourism section
I suggest deleting the Tourism section in its current form (I’ve already removed some). It’s not good. It’s just fluff about industry bodies and government promotional messages – all industries have such bodies and we don’t mention them all. Tourism is but one of dozens of major industries so why does it have its own section? Even if it was to be retained, currently no context is provided – ie, contribution to GDP???, contribution to export dollars? Significance of domestic tourism? (it’s a wikipedia article, not an add for international tourism), and that line about pollution spoiling it is just one person’s opinion. A picture of a generic tropical island is great for a travel brochure, but it is not informative for an encyclopaedic article – if Tourism must have it’s own section, why not provide a table with hard data that explains some of the above? --Merbabu (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of Melayu
For obvious political reasons, there have been efforts on various articles to hide or dispute the known fact that the word Melayu derives from Sanskrit. Instead, it is proposed that the term originates with the medieval Melayu kingdom. There is no doubt that the usage of the word Melayu dates back to this kingdom. But that doesn't change the fact that the word itself is Sanskrit-derived. The kingdom of Melayu wasn't just randomly tagged with a meaningless name. Morinae (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not trying to hide that. We just need reliable sources for that. If there is no sources for that, then that "fact" goes out of the article. If you think that it is true, please provide references. Bejinhan   talks   05:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Without a doubt, the word Melayu has its origins in Sanskrit. Yours faithfully, kotak  kasut . 14:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Objection on the etymology of Malaysia and "Melayu"
I would like to object this article entry as written in this "Malaysia" article:

The word Melayu derives from the Sanskrit term Malaiur or Malayadvipa which can be translated as "land of mountains", the word used by ancient Indian traders when referring to the Malay Peninsula.

My reason: This sentence just based on a "new modern theory" or "assumptions" not based on the ancient book(kitabs) in their original sources in Malay, i.e. - Sejarah Melayu a.k.a. Sulalatus Salatin (Malay Annals). How come you changed it? Where are the proofs to deny the original sources that mentioned the name came from "Melayu" river in Sumatera. The book was written from time to time, since the "Melayu" Kingdom until the last book was written 16th century.

If you based the "Melayu" as came from Sanskrit (the new modern theory), so why there was no mentioning the origin of "Melayu" word from the ancient book (Malay Annals)? For your information, the word "Melayu" etymologically came from the Malay/Java meaning of "runs swiftly" - that matched the river's trait (the river that run swift). This is also based on the etymology research done by researchers - please search about it. In addition, in the other articles that touch about "Melayu" word origin, written the name came from the river name, as you not concerned.

Thanks.

Master of Books (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are four citations to support the theory that the word comes from sanskrit. They appear to be reliable sources. But im unable to verify whether the contents really say that Melayu comes from sanskrit. But i assume good faith and accept those citations. If you have sources indicating that the term comes from the river in Indonesia, please do add it to the article and make the necessary amendments (eg. "..however other sources indicate that the term originated from a river named Melayu in Sumatra, Indonesia") ќמшמφטтгמ torque 07:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Master of Books, I learnt about the Malayan history and the Malay language itself contains 70% Sanskrit words, the word 'Melayu' itself being one of it. Can't object on history no? Yours faithfully, kotak  kasut . 14:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Link
What happened to the link for the Coat of Arms?? Fry1989 (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Kongsi Raya
There is no such festival as "Kongsi Raya". The term kongsi means "to share" in Malay. Kongsi raya means "share the celebration". It has nothing to do with "Gong Xi Fa Cai", and it doesn't refer to years where the festivals coincide. Morinae (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Malaysian languages@header
Adikhebat, reverted on the basis that it was not the national script. A simple check to many Malaysian-related articles have proven that the addition of related languages to header is a common thing. Jawi script is used in many articles, ex the wiki malay language version of Malaysia. also, Malaysia's airport wikipage. We should emnbrace Malaysia's multiculturalism., Please, nbote, that, nboth, the, tamil, anbd, chinese version of Malaysia wikipage have similar multiethnic languages as header why, shouldn't the english one be any different?115.132.80.184 (talk) 06:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, if you want to add those scripts going by the logic of multiculturalism, I suggest that you add all the hundreds of other ethnic languages spoken by the various native groups in Peninsular and East Malaysia. While it might be in your own POV that the English, Malay, Chinese, and Tamil are the only languages used here, I would beg to differ. What makes these 4 languages so special that if you want to have them in there, why not have all the other native languages as well? Please note that Wikipedia is not a forum for you to push for POV multiculturalism. There is no official rule or policy that states such a thing is allowed. The tamil and chinese wikipedias are different. There are many things that work on the other language wikipedias but do not work in the English Wikipedia. Please be clear in your references to other articles, especially if you mean the other articles in the other language Wikipedias.
 * Also, you said discuss first on talk page before editing. Since the original version is without all the scripts, I am going to revert to that original reversion pending discussion. The change should only take place after agreement, that makes sense.
 * If you do not have any other reason why the scripts should be there other than because of multiculturalism and because the other language wikipedias leave it be, I politely suggest that you leave the scripts out of this English Wikipedia article. There is no official policy that allows it and so it shouldn't be there.
 * Bejinhan  talks   09:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicely put Bejinhan --Merbabu (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm just an objective, non-affiliated third-part here glad to join the debate.Granted, ambiguous, there is no official policy disallowing it either. LOL maybe it was Singapore's country wikipage that was the filip behind the dude's innspiration to edit, cause the header of both infobox was identical. Surely we countries have much in common in terms of demographics and way of life, but surely also the mentioned 4 languages aren't the only languages spoken on the island country also.

And if you state that only the English script is sanctioned in the oh-so-indifferent English version of wikipedia (from other language-versions of wikipedia). You may start removing the Jawi script form many Malaysian articles, since it isn't significant concurrently isn't the national script then.

There's one thing he got right, and that is Malaysia's truly is a federation, which term wasn't use in previous status quo.Fookjian95 (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a simple observation re: the use of the 4 languages for Singapore. In Singapore, all the four languages are official languages whereas in Malaysia, only Malay is official. My opinion on the addition of Jawi is that it is appropriate as the National Language Act doesn't define a script just the language, unlike Singapore which defines the national language as Malay in the Roman script. - Bob K | Talk 14:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I'd agree only official languages (and, of course, English) should be used (ie. not Tamil). I have no objection to a Jawi script of the Malay name. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, only the latin script is sanctioned by the National Language Act. Jawi may be used for ceremonial purposes. Although unofficial languages, Chinese/Tamil can be used in signboards/adverts, provided, malay is used too at a size of 3:2Fookjian95 (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I see no reason for the infobox to have any heading other than simply "Malaysia". The purpose of the infobox is to summarize key facts and, more importantly, The top text line should be bold and contain either the full (official) name or common name of the article's subject. (WP:IBX).


 * Within the body of the article, by all means elaborate upon the languages used, which are official, and regarding the 'federation' status and so on. But not in the infobox.  Chzz  ► 00:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected re: the establishment of Roman script as the official script of the National Language (Art. 9 of the National Language Act). - Bob K | Talk 03:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case just English and Malay in the infobox, both in Latin script. Reasoned objections? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The National Language Act was enforced rigorously only since last year despite 40 years in existence (TV and public adverts). English is still the de facto language of commerce, half of the public addresses by Malaysia's current PM are ironically in English despite its administrative status butchered decades ago.

The top text line should be bold and contain either the full (official) name or common name of the article's subject.

I agree. Well as with Mr. Chipmunkdavis suggestion, i personally will rather leave it in English if other major vernacular languages are left out in your pursuit of changing the infobox header. Well the point iterated was that Chinese/Tamil are allowed in public spaces across all spectrums despite (sometimes lax enforced) limitations. But i'm fine anyhow. Fookjian95 (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)