Halal is really just another way to make money

There’s a cartoon out on the Internet right now which makes fun of the absurd lengths we (i.e. Malay Muslims) are going to demonstrate our zeal in all things halal. There are four bottles of similar colour lined up. They are labelled: tidak halal ...

September 30, 2016

There’s a cartoon out on the Internet right now which makes fun of the absurd lengths we (i.e. Malay Muslims) are going to demonstrate our zeal in all things halal. There are four bottles of similar colour lined up. They are labelled: tidak halal, halal biasa, halal plus and halal elit. The cheapest is the non-halal bottle while the most expensive is halal elit.

It’s a simple joke, obviously, but it underlines nicely both the fixation/ paranoia that people have with ensuring that everything is halal. It also highlights what is being done by those who are taking full advantage of this obsession: an opportunity to make money.

Because this is what is actually going on. When Rubber Industry Smallholders Development Authority (Risda) chairman Datuk Zahidi Zainul Abidin and the Malaysia International Institute of Islamic Cooperation (Ikiam) (also chaired by Datuk Zahidi. Conflict of interest, anyone?) announced a new logo to be issued by the latter to distinguish Muslim-made halal products, I have no doubt that he thought this was a rather clever idea.

After all, the global Sharia-compliant market is estimated to have a value of USD 2.3 trillion (World Halal Forum 2013). This covers food and non-food products which include pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and banking. Malaysia is a leading global halal hub for halal products and has an export value of RM 35.4 billion in that market.

By having a logo to distinguish Muslim-made food products exclusively for companies which are 100 per cent owned by this community, Zahidi probably thought that Malay businesses cornering this niche market in Muslim majority Malaysia would be a licence for them to print money.

It would be yet another identifier for the discerning consumer who wants additional assurance that the product they consume are as halal as they can be (the assumption is that if the food producers are Muslim then what they produce must be halal).

Get a free logo and you get to charge consumers a premium for the privilege of being halal and “made by Muslims”. After all, we already have chickens being serenaded with verses of the Quran (holy meat?) and halal-certified mineral water  (blessed waters?) being sold at premium prices, why should products with this label be any different?

Giving the logo out for free (without explaining how they are going to fund the inspections and stringent protocol similar to that of Jakim which he has assured he would do) would certainly be a boon for small business unable to afford the costs related to halal certification.

Now, this in itself is not wrong. After all, making yourself more exclusive and appealing to potential consumers in a market is good business strategy. You could even argue that it increases consumer choice and a premium could be charged for the privilege.

But it’s tricky to accept that when the rationale used by supporters of this logo such as Ikiam secretary Mohd Shamsuddin Damin, is based on the assumption that the mere introduction of rituals such as wuduk (ablution) to cleanse themselves and recital of prayers would result in products which are “more clean and better and higher quality”. There really is absolutely no evidence that this is so.

Besides circumventing Jakim’s stringent protocols for the conferring of the halal certification, having the Ikiam “made by Muslims” logo slapped onto products might also provide a false sense of security and misplaced feeling of entitlement. After all, the belief is that fellow Muslims must support each other, right? It seems we have learnt little from the reality and decades of providing preferential treatment based on race. Now we are moving on to religion.

When we don’t bother competing based on the quality and value for money of our products and services, and instead use the race and religion of the business owners with the intention to discriminate, stigmatise and marginalise others, the biggest losers will be the consumers themselves.

What this move really seems to imply is the unwillingness of Malay Muslim business owners to compete. To compete in a market where non-Muslim businesses are also producing halal quality products. That they instead rather rely on preferential treatment based on their race and religion to gain market share as opposed to slogging it out like everyone else. This has very little with religion and smacks more of protectionism and communalism.

Another problem is the seemingly mindless use of the halal status for things such as train services. I suppose it is comforting to someone in Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad that made history last July by being the first train service provider in the world to obtain halal certificate for its electric train services.

Will it make a difference in the quality of services it provides? I doubt it. Will it increase the public’s understanding of halal issues as claimed by Jakim’s director-general Tan Sri Datuk Othman Mustapha? People are either more confused or totally apathetic to it altogether. Was that whole thing actually a syok sendiri exercise?

That same month also brought about news that Malaysia was building the world’s first halal vaccine facility in Bandar Enstek, Nilai at an estimated cost of RM330 million and that it would be operational by early 2018.

Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia’s director of centre for science and environment studies, Dr. Shaikh Mohd Saifuddeen and Ahmad Badri Abdullah from the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies both claimed that there was mistrust of so-called conventional vaccines for fear that they contained non-halal substances.

That this mistrust was apparently contributing to the rejection of immunisations by Muslims in Malaysia and that there is a need for vaccines utilising halal compounds.

Except that Dr. Shaikh stated that it would take about 15 years to develop a halal vaccine and that it would cost at least three times more than existing non-halal versions. He also couldn’t explain how halal vaccines would be different from conventional ones that are already available in the market. Ministry of Health representative, Dr Faridah Abu Bakar, even stated that she wasn’t even aware of how the operator of the facility was going about creating halal vaccines.

Does anything in the above paragraph make sense? Why would we spend 15 years developing lifesaving vaccines which would cost three times more than what is already available on the market today? Why is RM 330 million being spent to build a facility for a production that has yet to be figured out?

Indeed, all of this in the name of halal. Just another way to make money.

http://www.ideas.org.my/comments/halal-is-really-just-another-way-to-make-money/

GLC appointments: don’t trivialise the discourse

I just returned from New Delhi, visiting two schools that run an education voucher programme and attending a regional meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society which discussed India’s position as a global power. 

By Wan Saiful Wan Jan, For “Kite of Freedom” column in The Star (iPad edition) Wednesday 16 February 2011

The Mont Pelerin Society was founded in 1947 by Professor Friedrich von Hayek, to bring together classical liberal thinkers so that they can exchange ideas on how to strengthen the principles and practices of a free society.

Quite a few journalists called me up while I was in the meeting, trying to get clarifications about a panel discussion we organised last Tuesday, 8 February, in conjunction with the 108th birthday of Almarhum Tunku Abdul Rahman and IDEAS’ first anniversary.

It turned out that while I was abroad, there was a small storm at home resulting from comments made that event, especially regarding whether politicians should be appointed to top positions in GLCs.

The real reason behind this small storm was me. I was the moderator of the panel discussion, and we were discussing Tunku Abdul Rahman’s statement: “I have always maintained that the Government must not indulge in business. This must be left to the business community.”

I asked our panel members what they thought about this quote. I argued that some business entities could be used for political agenda, and the appointment of politicians to top posts in government-owned businesses may give rise to the wrong impression.

I then gave the example of Felda, wherein Tan Sri Isa Samad, whom UMNO have found guilty of influencing votes with money, was made chairman at a time when there are worries about how Felda settlers would vote. I insinuated that there may be political reasons behind this appointment.

For those who know me, I think it is no secret that I vehemently disagree with such a move because it creates doubt about the government’s commitment to reform.

Datuk Zainal Aznam gave a strong response, saying that it was a sad day for the country because the message given by the appointment was certainly wrong. I completely agree with Datuk Zainal. For someone in such a high position to be so brave in voicing the strong, and risky, opinion is laudable.

I departed for New Delhi the day after that event. Soon after arriving I received emails and SMS informing me that our top leaders, including the Prime Minister, are commenting on statements made at our event.

Yes, the answers given to my question on that day may hurt the government. But I believe that if we want the reform agenda initiated by the Prime Minister to succeed, then we must be brave enough to correct wrongs. Only with this kind of frankness can we ensure the government’s efforts to liberalise our economy continues to be on the right track.

But, I am worried that by giving too much attention on my question regarding the propriety of Tan Sri Isa Samad’s appointment, we are missing the bigger picture that I was trying to raise, which is whether or not a government should own and run business entities. That is the question brought up by Tunku’s quote above. And that is the proper context for our debate. As a classical liberal, I share Almarhum Tunku’s belief that the government should not.

At the opening dinner of the Mont Pelerin Society meeting last Thursday, Arun Shourie, a respected former Indian minister, said that one of the challenges we now face is the “trivialisation of discourse”. If we were to focus just on Tan Sri Isa and Felda, then we are certainly trivialising the discourse.

What we should do is to go back to the bigger debate about whether or not government should be involved so actively in the business world, the way our government has been for decades.

My hope is that the economic liberalisation that Dato’ Sri Najib is gallantly spearheading will create an environment as envisaged by Almarhum Tunku, our Bapa Malaysia, when he said “the government must not indulge in business”. If we were to follow his visionary advice, then debating Felda and Tan Sri Isa becomes trivial.

Pakatan Rakyat leaders and supporters should not pretend to be innocent either. Just look at the GLCs in Pakatan Rakyat states. They are full with political appointees too. Remember the case of Nik Aziz’s son-in-law? Has anyone checked the list of directors in state-owned companies in Pakatan Rakyat states?.

Unless Pakatan Rakyat comes up with an economic mode that is more free from government involvement, they should be ashamed to cast stones at others. Don’t be too quick to jeer at Barisan Nasional when the reality is, their own houses are stinking too.

In any case, we are in the process of putting up the video of that panel discussion on our website. Hopefully once we have done that, readers can see what exactly what was said by whom so that there is no misunderstanding.

—
Wan Saiful Wan Jan is chief executive of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (www.IDEAS.org.my)

http://www.ideas.org.my/comments/glc-appointments-dont-trivialise-the-discourse/

Malaysia refers to declassified British files in seeking revision of ICJ ruling on Pedra Branca

Malaysia has cited three documents recently declassified by the United Kingdom to support its application for a revision of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on Pedra Branca.

Straits Times Graphic

Saturday, 4 February 2017 | MYT 11:42 AM

SINGAPORE - Malaysia has cited three documents recently declassified by the United Kingdom to support its application for a revision of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on Pedra Branca.

They are: internal correspondence of the Singapore colonial authorities in 1958, an incident report filed in 1958 by a British naval officer, and an annotated map of naval operations from the 1960s, the ICJ said in a press release on Friday (Feb 3).

The documents were discovered in the UK National Archives between Aug 4, 2016 and Jan 30, 2017, the release added.

"Malaysia claims that these documents establish the new fact that 'officials at the highest levels in the British colonial and Singaporean administration appreciated that Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh did not form part of Singapore's sovereign territory' during the relevant period," it said.

"Malaysia argues that 'that the Court would have been bound to reach a different conclusion on the question of sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh had it been aware of this new evidence'."

Pedra Branca, some 40km east of Singapore and at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Strait, is known as Pulau Batu Puteh by Malaysia.

Britain, and later, Singapore, had maintained control over the island since the 1850s until Malaysia staked its claim to the island in a 1979 map.

The dispute saw both neighbours refer the case to the ICJ, which is based in the Hague, the Netherlands, in 2003.

The Court found on May 23, 2008 that sovereignty over Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore, sovereignty over Middle Rocks belonged to Malaysia, and sovereignty over South Ledge belongs to the State in the territorial waters of which it is located.

A key consideration in its decision was a letter dated Sept 21, 1953, in which Johor's top official informed the British authorities in Singapore that "the Johor government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca". The Court said in its 2008 ruling it considered this letter and its interpretation of central importance for determining the understanding of both parties about sovereignty over the island, and found Johor's reply showed that as of 1953, it understood that it did not have sovereignty over Pedra Branca.

ICJ's release on Friday (Feb 3) comes as Malaysia's Attorney-General Apandi Ali said in a statement the same day that his country had applied to revise the 2008 judgment a day earlier.

Mr Apandi said the bid was made "upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and also to Malaysia as the party claiming revision." He did not elaborate.

A spokesman for Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) said on Friday that Malaysia had informed Singapore that it had made an application for revision of ICJ's judgment.

"Singapore is studying Malaysia's application and documentation closely and has formed its legal team to respond to Malaysia's application," he said.

The team includes Attorney-General Lucien Wong, Professor S.Jayakumar, Professor Tommy Koh and former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong.

In its release, the ICJ noted that Malaysia based its application on Article 61 of the ICJ's Statute, which provides that an "application for revision of a judgment may be made only when it is based upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence."

The request for revision must be submitted within six months of the discovery of the new fact, and not later than 10 years from the date of the judgment.

"The proceedings for revision are opened by a judgment which decides whether an application for revision is admissible, that is, whether the above conditions have been fulfilled," ICJ added.

The Court noted that Malaysia, in its application, contends that "there exists a new fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor within the meaning of Article 61".

Malaysia also asserts that the new fact was not known to Malaysia or to the Court when the judgment was given because it was "only discovered on review of the archival files of the British colonial administration after they were made available to the public by the UK National Archives after the Judgment was rendered in 2008", the ICJ said.

"Malaysia also argues that its ignorance of the new fact was not due to negligence as the documents in question were 'confidential documents which were inaccessible to the public until their release by the UK National Archives'," it added.

Malaysia has asked the ICJ to adjudge and declare its application for revision of the 2008 judgment is admissible.

It has also asked the Court to fix time-limits to proceed with consideration of the merits of the application, ICJ said. - The Straits Times

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/02/04/malaysia-refers-to-declassified-british-files-in-seeking-revision-of-icj-ruling-on-pedra-branca/