Monday, October 10, 2011

Only 8% of arrested criminal offenders were eventually convicted??

I believe I am not alone when I say I worry about my safety as well as my family members and friends’ safety all the time. How can I not be? My friends, family members and I have been victims of robbery , snatch-theft, burglary, pick-pocketing etc. in the past.

Were our perpetrators ever caught? I don’t know …but I know that I have not heard of anyone (the victims) being asked to appear in police stations /courts to identify / to testify against the suspects before.

Yet, it still came as a shock to learn that only 8% of arrested criminal offenders were eventually convicted in court. If the risk of being caught and punished is so low, wouldn’t this only emboldened criminals and encourage more people to commit crime? Aren’t we then sending the wrong message to criminals and criminals-to-be that crime pays?

The focus have always been on our police force to maintain law and order ( and hence reduce crime rate) -- our police gets most of the blame for this current social issue but our prosecution office does not get as much heat (at least not from the media and, citizens). I think it’s time for us to pay more attention to our prosecution unit, which forms an equal importance in whole criminal justice system.

***********************************************************************

According to our 2009 Attorney General Annual report, Malaysia has a total of 352 Deputy Public Prosecutors (DPPs) stationed at Putrajaya and the states’ prosecution units. 272 DPPs are posted to the various states and districts throughout the country

These 272 state DPPs had to review 216,000 investigation papers or cases in 2009 (and decide whether to prosecute, dismiss or request further investigations). So, on average each state DPP had to look at 794 cases a year, in addition to attending to their other job duties like preparing for and conducting criminal prosecutions in courts, giving lectures/training etc. To me, as a lay-person, that sounds like a lot of work.

Compare our numbers with neighbor Singapore -- Singapore has a total of 108 DPPs who reviewed a total of only 41,000 investigation papers in 2009. This works out to be 308 cases per DPP, less than half the workload our of DPPs.

Well, one can argue that perhaps our DPPs are more efficient that their Singapore counterparts. But are they? Out of the 216,000 cases reviewed in 2009, only about 19,000 were brought to the courts. In other words, only about 9% of the arrested criminal offenders were eventually charged in court (stats not available for Singapore). And out of the 9% offenders that were charged in court, about 86% were actually convicted (conviction rate data from Attorney General Report 2009).

What do these stats tell us? Are our police are arresting the wrong people? Are our police arresting people without sufficient evidence? Are our DPPs dismissing far too cases (w/o charging)? Are our DPPs’ standards too high? Unfortunately, I don’t have enough information to provide the answers.

Yes, the government is adding more policemen and CCTVs (on the street) to combat crime. In doing this, we are attempting to deter crime by increasing the THREAT of BEING CAUGHT. However, this is not sufficient. The THREAT of BEING PUNISHED if caught should equally be emphasized on. A world with no or little threat of punishment would only emboldened criminals and encourage criminals-to-be.

Friday, October 7, 2011

Budget 2012 - no goodies for me

Some good news for civil servants. And those with household income below RM 3,000

But I fall under the middle-income category - there's nothing for me

No tax reliefs, reduction in tax rate, no additional EPF contribution from employer, no special assistance from the government

How to cope with inflation??

Budget - what is in store for me?

AM watching live coverage of the Budget
Am curious to know what's in store for me.....hope it will be good news!!

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Malaysia's 1 million civil servants

Malaysia is said to have "one of the highest civil servants to population ratio in the world." According to Public Services Dept, Malaysia had a total of 1,076,761 civil servants in 2010 (Source: 2010 Data from Human Resources Management Information System, PSD). This means we have 1 civil servant for every 26 citizen in Malaysia, or a civil servant to population ratio of 3.8%. PSD does not provide a breakdown of civil servants employed by department / profession type.

Just how bloated is our civil service? It has been widely mentioned in various newspaper articles that we have the same number of civil servants as Japan although Japan has a population of 120mil (*Note: Japan's civil servants number has been put as 1mil, but data is not verifiable. Wikipedia also mentioned the 1mil figure)

A closer examination showed that the Japan's widely quoted 1 mil figure is incorrect. A check with Japan's Statistics Bureau Home Yearbook showed that the country has about 3.3mil public employees (both local and national) in 2008. Unlike Malaysia, teachers, police, fire fighters etc are considered local public employees. Also in Japan, general admin staff working at perfecture- and city-levels are also local public employees and hence, included in the total civil servants tally. I am not sure if our state-level employees (i.e. hired by respective states and not federal government) are included in the 1.1m figure given by PSD although I believe it is not. Based on above numbers, Japan's civil servant to population ratio is about 2.8% vs. Malaysia's 3.8% (Malaysia's ratio could be higher if PSD's figure excludes employees employed by respective states).

Interestingly, the Japanese government has also done a comparison with other developed nations in 2007 -- in the US, the ratio is about 4.6% (based on 2005 data of 13.28m civil servants for 290 mil population) and in the UK, ratio is about 9.3% (based on 2005 data of 5.6m civil servants for population of 60 mil). *** note: for comparison purposes, Malaysia's ratio was about 3.3% in 2005, Japan: 2.9% in 2005 ***

Are we then more efficient than UK and US? Perhaps...again, a closer examination of the data showed that in the UK, they have about 1.6m health personnel vs. our 130,000. This means UK has 27 health personnel for every 1,000 of its citizens whereas we have about 5 health personnel for every 1,000 Malaysians. Also, they have 24 teachers per 1000 people vs. Malaysia's 14 teachers per 1000 people (ideally we should look at teacher: student ratio but number of students in UK in 2005 was not available)

It is hence important that we analyse the breakdown of civil servants by occupation type and compare ratios with that of other developing countries (vs. developed countries which tend to have better health care / education service etc).

To get a rough idea of who forms our 1.1mil civil servants , I have compiled the number of employee data from the various better-known government agencies and summarized them into table below. Note that most of our icvil servants are teachers, armed forces and police personnel as well as doctors and nurses employed in public hospitals/clinics.

Will continue to update table as I get more data.

Type (civil servants)

Number

Data source

Teachers

408,764

Jan-2011, Ministry of Education website

Armed forces

134,000

2008, World Bank

Public health personnel (comprising mainly doctors, nurses and community nurses)

128,996

Health Facts 2010, Ministry of Health website

Police

98,747

Feb-2010, newspaper article quoting Home Minister

Prime Minister’s Dept*

43,544

2010, parliamentary reply by Minister in PM’s Dept

Fire and Rescue Dept

12,400

2011, newspaper article quoting Housing and Local Government Minister

Immigration Dept

12,168

2009, newspaper article quoting Immigration Dept Director-General

Royal Malaysian Customs

12,000

2010, newspaper article quoting Customs Dept Director-General

Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL)

12,000

2011, news article on DBKL unions & CUEPACS

Prisons Dept

10,287

2007, newspaper article quoting Internal Security Ministry parliamentary secretary

Inland Revenue Board (LHDN)

10,000

2010, presentation by IRB Deputy DG

Forestry Dept, Pen Malaysia

5,403

2009, FDPM

Dept of Statistics

3,314

2010, DOSM Strategic Plan 2010-2014

National Registration Dept

Over 3,000

IBM customer profile website

Valuation & Property Services Dept (JPPH)

2,101

2011, JPPH website













*Includes personal offices of PM and DPM and 45 agencies such as MACC, AG’s office, Election Commission, Human Rights Commission, Public Complaints Bureau etc.


And table below shows how our number of civil servants has increased over the years:

2006

894,901


2007

943,927

+ 5.5%

2008

1,003,152

+ 6.3%

2009

1,053,938

+ 5.1%

2010

1,076,761

+ 2.2%




Source: HRMIS, Public Service Dept.


Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Malaysia's social indicators

We are way from achieving developed country's status, judging from the social and other indicators below

Interestingly, we have more foreign students studying locally here vs. local student studying abroad.

Doctor to population ratio (Malaysia)

(WHO recommendation)

1 to 940

1 to 600

Ministry of Health, June 2010

Nurse to population ratio (Malaysia)

(WHO recommendation)

1 to 340

1 to 200

Ministry of Health, 2009

Dentist to population ratio (Malaysia)

(WHO recommendation)

1 to 7,840

1 to 4,000

Ministry of Health, Jan 2010

Pharmacist to population ratio (Malaysia)

(WHO recomm)

1 to 3,878

1 to 2,000

Ministry of Health, 2009

Police to population ratio (Malaysia)

(Interpol recommendation)

1 to 500

1 to 250

Malaysia Productivity Corp / Royal Malaysian Police

Researchers per 1 mil inhabitants (Malaysia)

(S'pore)

(Japan)

729

7,059

6,934

Unescap

R&D expenditure as % of GDP (Malaysia)

(Singapore)

(Japan)

0.6%

2.6%

3.4%

Unescap

No of Malaysian students studying abroad, of which
% are sponsored
% are self-sponsored

No of foreign students studying in local higher education institutions, of which
% are from South & East Asia and SEA
% from West Asia
% from Africa
% from other countries

79, 254
-- 36%
-- 64%


86, 923
-- 40%
-- 27.4%
-- 24.2%
-- 8.4%

Ministry of Higher Education, 2010

Malaysia tries to rein in private education institutions

Article on our education institutions by NY Times

By Liz Gooch, New York Times

KUALA LUMPUR — Malaysia’s private higher-education institutions are coming under greater scrutiny, with the government imposing a record number of fines on errant operators this year.

Having expanded rapidly in the last 15 years, the private sector is widely credited with increasing access to higher education in Malaysia, but education experts say standards vary greatly.

While some view the increasing number of fines issued to private providers as cause for concern, others say that they are an indication that regulators are doing a more effective job weeding out inferior companies. And some analysts say the government’s actions are an attempt to safeguard the reputation of the industry.

In a statement, the Ministry of Higher Education said that while it hoped that the private sector would continue to grow, ensuring that providers offered quality education was crucial.

“The challenges are in striking the right balance between promoting growth in higher education in Malaysia and providing quality education,” the ministry said. “This is important because Malaysia is progressing toward becoming a developed nation where knowledge workers are an important element in the agenda for growth and at the same time, Malaysia is also aspiring to become the hub of higher education in the region.”

The statement added that while the government hoped that the private sector would expand further, applications for new institutions would be determined based on whether the institution met the application criteria and whether its proposed programs were “aligned to the critical area needed by the country.”

The ministry issued fines to 47 private education institutions from January to March this year, following regular audits, inspections and complaints from the public. Last year, 48 institutions received fines throughout the year, compared to 9 in 2009. Institutions were fined for a range of infractions, from making false or misleading statements promoting their institutions to offering unaccredited courses and violating registration regulations such as operating on unregistered premises.

Malaysia’s private higher-education sector has expanded rapidly since the government introduced legislation in 1996 to allow the establishment of private universities. Prior to the sector’s liberalization, local private institutions offered programs in conjunction with overseas universities but were unable to award their own degrees.

Since 1996, the number of private universities and colleges that offer degree and nondegree courses has grown substantially, with Malaysia now home to 26 private universities, which offer degrees at the bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate level.

An additional 23 private “university colleges” offer bachelor’s degrees only, 5 foreign universities from countries like Australia and Britain have established branch campuses and there are more than 400 private colleges that offer diploma and certificate courses.

Part of the aim of liberalizing the higher-education sector was to help increase access to postsecondary education and bolster Malaysia’s “human capital,” said Tham Siew Yean, a professor at the Institute of Malaysian and International Studies at the National University of Malaysia. She said the postsecondary enrollment rate for Malaysians aged 18 to 23 rose to 44 percent in 2010 from 29 percent in 2003, or students enrolled in any type of higher education.

There are now more students studying in the private sector than in public institutions, with private institutions accounting for almost 54 percent.

Ms. Tham said that there was a “tremendous diversity” of programs and that the provision of government loans for private courses had helped increase the number of students studying in the private sector.

Lee Hock Guan, a senior fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, said: “For an average student, it’s not too difficult to get into higher education nowadays in Malaysia. There are so many places competing for them.”

Yet analysts say standards at some private institutions are insufficient while some accuse the government of playing catch-up in its attempt to weed out inferior providers.

“The Ministry of Education does have a problem of quality control,” Mr. Lee said, adding that standards varied greatly between private universities. “There are some that are decent but some that are pretty weak.”

Employers have long complained that graduates from Malaysian universities, public and private, lack vital talents like communication skills.

“We are getting more and more complaints from employers that they are getting students who are not up to the mark,” Mr. Lee said, adding that some institutions enroll students who may not be qualified. “For many of the private universities, they are quite lax because their main thing is they have to enroll as many students as possible in order to generate revenue.”

Mr. Lee contends that the government is monitoring the private sector more closely to ensure that Malaysia’s reputation does not suffer among prospective international students. Malaysia has set the goal of attracting 200,000 international students by 2020.

“Fearing that there will be a drop in foreign students, that has pressured the government to better regulate the private sector,” he said.

Others view the increasing number of fines as a sign that the regulators are doing their job more effectively.

“More fines means they are controlling people who are not doing the right thing,” said Molly Lee, a senior program specialist in higher education at Unesco Asia Pacific in Bangkok. “To me it’s a good sign from the regulatory perspective.”

Ms. Lee, who described Malaysia’s private higher-education sector as “dynamic, innovative and competitive,” said the country was well equipped to monitor private providers.

“I am sure the concern of quality of private institutions is always there,” she said. “I think over time the better ones are gaining a good reputation while the bad ones are being identified by the authorities.”

Ms. Tham, the professor, said that stringent regulations governed the private sector but that before the last two years, there had been little information available about private colleges being fined.

“I would say the ministry perhaps may have had problems being able to monitor the large number of providers,” she said. “I think that it’s good that they are acting on it, that they are able to be more effective in their monitoring.”

Hassan Said, vice chancellor and president of Taylor’s University, one of Malaysia’s oldest private higher-education institutions, which was not among the fined institutions, estimated that only 5 percent of private providers did not comply with government regulations.

“Although the number is small, its impact to the other private providers is pretty bad,” he said in an e-mail. “Hence the move by the ministry to impose stricter monitoring of the private sector is timely and should be supported.”

Taylor’s University, which has 11,700 students, began offering nondegree courses in 1969 and was upgraded to university status last year. The institution began offering degree programs in the 1990s via programs with other universities, before offering its own bachelor degrees in 2006, followed by master’s and doctorate programs last year.

Mr. Hassan said that while the lesser-quality providers could make it more difficult for reputable private institutions because “ the negative perception by stakeholders will be generalized to the whole industry,” students and parents were becoming better equipped to select the quality providers because information about the institutions was widely available.

Parmjit Singh, president of the Malaysian Association of Private Colleges and Universities, said he supported the government’s moves to be more vigilant.

“It will bring integrity to the industry,” he said. “Over the years, there have been colleges that have popped up. My view is some of them should not have been allowed to be registered.”

But Mr. Parmjit said some institutions had made “innocent mistakes” that could result in fines, like not listing the correct course approval code on a brochure.

“One could not generalize and say that all those who have been fined are bad players,” he said.

Mr. Parmjit said that the increase in fines was not indicative of any broader trend within the sector and that “market forces” would force poor-quality providers out of business.

“The bottom line is that market forces are in play,” he said. “If anyone does a poor job, their time will be limited.”

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Retirement Age to be raised to 60 (from 55)

Good news for private sector employees.

Plans are under way to raise the retirement age from 55 to 60 for private sector workers. And a new law is currently being drafted by the government that will mandate retirement at 60 -- in other words, private sector employees cannot be "forced" to leave their employment upon reaching 55 years old, else it could be deemed as "unlawful dismissal".

Raising the retirement age is line with global trend. Most countries have already done so a few years back. Here's a partial list of the retirement age of selected countries:

** Singapore - 62 years
** China - 60 for men, 55 for women
** France - 60
** UK - 65
** Taiwan - 65
** USA - 65 for those born before 1960, 67 for those born after 1960

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Competition Act: Malaysian Competition Commission

The Malaysian Competition Commission (myCC) launched its website and logo today (see mycc.gov.my). It is great to read that the long-awaited Competition Act will come into force next year 2012.

The Malaysian Competition Commission's Chairman in an interview today said that they will investigate all anti-competitive behaviors/activities based on public complaints and when they stumble upon such behaviors.

This is definitely positive news for the consumers and even (small) businesses as we now have another avenue to complaint against unfair competition/practices such as price-fixing, market-sharing, abusing one's dominant market position etc.

A good example is the recent MAS-Air Asia's deal and collaboration agreement. The Commission's Chairman had said they may be looking into the deal

Well, below is an excerpt from the media release by MAS:

" Subject to appropriate anti-trust review, the Company, AirAsia and AAX agree that each party (whether by itself or through a subsidiary or affiliate) will focus only on the following business segments: • MAS will focus on being a full-service premium carrier (“FSC”). • AirAsia will focus on being a regional low-cost carrier (“LCC”). • AAX will focus on being a medium-to-long haul LCC. MAS intends to review Firefly Sdn Bhd’s operations, and MAS’s shorthaul FSC business may be undertaken by itself and/or through a new MAS subsidiary (“Sapphire”), and MAS has the flexibility to re-designate capacity, assets and resources from Firefly Sdn Bhd to form Sapphire "

Now, the statement above sure does sound pretty much like a "market-sharing" agreement to me as a lay person. And to review Firefly's operations which currently competes directly with AA, wouldn't this be construed as yet another evidence of "market-sharing"? Hmmm....

It will be interesting to see what happens next year when the Act is enforced. What will the Commission's response if a complaint is lodged? Would MAS-Air Asia be exempted from Act? Would share swap and collaboration be deemed as not infringing the Competition Act? Judging from the various negative comments from other blogs, I would think someone would definitely be lodging a complaint. Interesting 2012

In the US and Europe, many big companies have been subjected to anti-competition suits in the past and recent years.

e.g. Merger of AT&T' and T-Mobile in 2011 was blocked by US regulators on grounds of being anti-competitive and because it could cause wireless prices to rise as competition reduces from 4 big players to 3

e.g. Coca-Cola's proposed acquisition of China Huiyuan in 2009 was blocked by Chinese regulators who concluded that the transaction would have adverse effect on competition

e.g. Google is being investigated by US regulators - probe will focus on Google's advertising business and whether Google has been directing search users to its own services over the competition

e.g.IBM was probed by European Commission in 2010 - whether IBM was abusing its dominant position in the market for mainframe computers

Let's see how strong and effective this new watchdog is in comparison to its US and EU counterparts.

Monday, September 19, 2011

Hooray...ISA is abolished

Am elated to hear the news live over TV...although it was not a complete surprise as several online news portals have earlier mentioned about such possibility. News must have leaked.. I must say these journalists have reliable insider sources (wonder who ??). I read about how some Cabinet Ministers were sworn to secrecy but I supposed somehow some talked

Hope more similar Acts would be repealed and one day, all Malaysians can freely express their thoughts without fear

Complaint: Airline's poor service

My flight is delayed. I was only notified about the delay 2 hours before the departure time via SMS. I tried to call the airline company but was greeted by the automated voice response system. I opted to speak to an operator but all the call agents' lines were engaged. I redialled numerous times but could not reach the call centre agent.

I had to spend my time waiting at the airport as I had made prior transport arrangement to send me to the airport and couldn't re-arrange the pick-up time. I was still feeling a little upset when I checked-in. There were long queues at all the check-in counters. Rushing to clear the queue (for other flights which are due to take-off quite soon), the personnel manning the counters were not smiling nor apologetic. Neither were the stewardesses. They greeted passengers rather reluctantly. I was not happy.

After my trip, I decided to complain about the airline's poor service. I checked their website for their email address. Wrote them a complaint email but did not receive any reply. I wrote to the newspapers but my letter was not published (perhaps because this airline co is a big advertiser, so papers are rather careful not to publish negative letters on co).

I decided to escalate this up. First, I forwarded my complaint email to the airline co's CEO and CCed everyone whose email address I can find in the company (googled and simply add anyone with this airline company email address). Tepid response.

Then, I checked the airline's website to find out the industry awards that they have won recently - e.g. Airline of the Year, Best Managed Company etc. I wrote to the organizations that gave out the awards (e.g. Skytrax http://www.airlinequality.com/ and Euromoney) and told these organizations why I, as a customer, think this company did not deserve the award(s). I made sure I CCed the CEO and customer relationship desk.

Will try facebook and twittering next.