Jump to content

Talk:Malaysia/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Anti-Chinese sentiment and racially-based political clashes

The political framework of ethnic politics seems to be mentioned everywhere else on the Internet when discussing Malaysia, except in this article. In other words, the articles reads like it's been whitewashed.

The following article may provide some needed insight into the subject: http://www.bebeyond.com/LearnEnglish/BeAD/Readings/DiasporaMalaysia.html

--Sir Edgar 09:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you havent read articles and the links like Bumiputra, education and such? __earth 11:06, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I think this subject should be discussed in the main article about Malaysia, at least in the politics and demographics section. It seems to be an important topic in any conversation about the country.--Sir Edgar 05:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

well, if you have something against it, edit it. And I don't think its called anti-Chinese sentiment or something like that. It's more of racial nationalism. If it was anti-Chinese sentiment, then some of the discontent against the Malay could be called anti-Malay sentiment eh? After all, most Malaysians think that they are <insert any race here>, Malaysian second, don't you think so? __earth 06:26, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
If you ask me, that article is a bit too heavily biased in favour of the Chinese, and in any case, goes into the subject far too deeply for an article on Malaysia in general. The racist policies (tacitly supported by most citizens; sure, the Malays have their NEP, but the Indians and Chinese have their segregationist primary schools) of the government are merely one part of the bigger picture. That said, I certainly agree with the sentiments expressed in that article. Nevertheless, I think a paragraph in the main Malaysia article should suffice for coverage of this topic. Johnleemk | Talk 15:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
earth, that's right, it's not anti-Chinese sentiment. Rather, it's elitist Malay nationalism -- not to be confused with Malaysian nationalism. I'd recommend everyone read the Malay Dilemma, where Mahathir, the previous PM of Malaysia addresses the fact that foreigners in the form of Chinese migrants, Indian migrants and British colonialists have monopolised the economy of Malaya. He then says that steps and policies must be taken to ensure that Malays can once again take control of the economy and businesses. This has already been achieved in the past few decades, and to some points, abused. As a non-Malay Malaysian, I have first-hand experience to all this. - Kriskhaira 06:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. A single paragraph on the subject should suffice. I will edit content into there as soon as I gather an overall perspective. --Sir Edgar 23:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't put any stock in that article. It's heavily emotional and misrepresents a lot of facts. For one thing the author claims the Chinese community suffer extreme economic discrimination. Actually, the chinese community own the majority of Malaysia's wealth. If anything it is the Bumiputeras who suffer ecnomomic discrimination. This is precisely one of the reasons why the Malaysian government introduced affirmative action policies in the first place. The author claims the chinese future is gloomy. Rubbish. The chinese community is strong, well organised, wealthy, educated. You cannot claim the same for the Bumiputeras. It is *their* future which is bleak. They run a very real risk of being excluded in the development of the country. The author might be "Malaysian-born" and a Phd holder but I wouldn't bother with anymore of his materials. Jan

Actually, I would contest the assertion that the Bumiputras' future is bleak. Although it is true that many languish in poverty, their cousins in the city are just like any Chinese now — rich and successful, and getting discounts on new limousines and mansions while they're at it. There's a huge gap between the rich and poor Malays, unfortunately. I think the statement that the Bumiputras' future is bleak would be true if qualified; many are poor, but many are also quite rich; there is a substantial Malay middle class. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Malaysia is not an "upper middle income" country

According to the CIA, Malaysia is ranked 83 out of 232 in terms of GDP per capita:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

And this is based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) which is more a measure of standard of living that inflates the GDP per capita of countries like Malaysia with low costs of living compared to income. A better measurement, in my opinion, is nominal GDP per capita which measures actual dollar power.

Anyhow, upper-middle income countries, by both standards, would be countries like Bahrain (51), Czech Republic (59), Hungary (62), Kuwait (44), Malta (53), and South Korea (52). Malaysia, on the other hand, is ranked there with Botswana (86), Kazakhstan (96), Mexico (85), and South Africa (78)-- hardly countries anyone would call "upper middle income". In fact, Malaysia is almost exactly ranked with the world average-- World (89).

Thus, Malaysia is definitely a "middle-income" country, not an "upper middle income" one.--Sir Edgar 23:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Nominal GDP doesn't include inflation. That's why real GDP is much more important to nominal GDP as real GDP measures the well-being of a country in real term. Anyway, Malaysia is above average even with CIA's table. According to World Bank, Malaysia is an upper middle class. Umich has World Bank's WDI dated 1999. An updated version of the WDI is at World Bank. __earth 07:09, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I changed it back to "middle-income" country as it seems most sources call Malaysia such. Do a Google search and see for yourself. By the way, the World Bank has no "middle-income" category. I don't see how anyone can see Malaysia as on the cusp of joining the ranks of highly-developed, wealthy countries like the United States or Japan when it has only one-third the GDP per capita of these countries and can't even eliminate highly infectious diseases like malaria and typhoid.--Sir Edgar 07:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should quote your assertion? I quoted World Bank, which is a prime source of many economic data apart from IMF, the UN and a few others. Merely saying Google doesn't prove a thing. You'll need a credible proof to back you assertion. Hence, I prefer to believe World Bank rather than your word.
BTW, according to WB's WDI, there are 5 classes, Malaysia is in group 3 while developed countries are group 1. Maybe you didnt read the classification method before commenting?
Plus, the US does occasionally have thypoid. Moreover red nile, mad cow etc have been frequently recorded. Heck, Singapore is a rich country but currently facing dengue crisis.
In any case, this categorization is subjective and it depends on the observer. In this case, World Bank vs you. __earth 08:20, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I already showed you data from the CIA. Can rank 83 out of 232 (and when the world average is rank 89) be considered "upper-middle"? It looks like "middle" to me.
Anyhow, it seems like whoever wrote this in the Wikipedia article about Malaysia...
"Malaysia, an upper-middle-income country, transformed itself from 1971 through the late 1990s from a producer of raw materials into an emerging multi-sector economy via the controversial New Economic Policy (NEP)."
May have lifted it from here:
"Malaysia, a middle-income country, transformed itself from 1971 through the late 1990s from a producer of raw materials into an emerging multi-sector economy. [1]
Interesting though... It seems someone quoted this text almost word for word, but then changed "middle-income" to "upper-middle-income"... Hmmm...
Even the World Bank, according to this site, categorizes Malaysia as a "middle-income developing country". [2]
More:
Worldfacts confirms: "Malaysia, a middle-income country..." [3]
Yale University says, "Middle-income countries like Mexico and Malaysia..." [4]
The United Nations: "middle-income countries—such as Brazil, China, Malaysia, Mexico, and South Africa..." [5]
The BBC: "Malaysia is now a middle income nation..." [6]
The Asian Development Bank (ADB): "Middle-income countries in the Asia and Pacific region include a diverse group comprising Malaysia, Thailand..." [7]
Refugees International: "Malaysia is a middle income country..." [8]
By the way, there's even an article entitled "Malaysia is a Middle-Income Country"... [9]
Oh, and according to the ADB, Malaysia's nominal GDP per capita is only $4,175 and even goes out of its way to say that it's "a middle-income country", too: "Malaysia, with a GDP per capita of $4,175, is firmly established as a middle-income country." [10]
Regardless, it appears that a World Bank technical term that has no real relevance, outside of World Bank categorization methodology, was used. --Sir Edgar 09:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
For your information, Nationmaster lifts its source from the CIA factbook and so does Worldfacts. The Waterforfood.org website has its source dated at July 1, 2000 as opposed to __earth's cited source, the (most likely already updated) list from the official World Bank website.
Your so-called article entitled "Malaysia is a Middle-Income Country" is created by students and is on a website that specialises in storing essays and coursework. Credibility aside, this is not a good website to back up your source.
I've checked out your links as mentioned above, and you know what? They have been taken out of context to make it seem that evidence is now "sliding" to your side. I can, but I won't do such "twisting" of quotes.
Your quote: "middle-income countries—such as Brazil, China, Malaysia, Mexico, and South Africa..." [11]
Actual sentence: "But leading middle-income countries—such as Brazil, China, Malaysia, Mexico, and South Africa—also have expertise of direct benefit to the poorer countries."
Your quote: "Oh, and according to the ADB, Malaysia's nominal GDP per capita is only $4,175 and even goes out of its way to say that it's "a middle-income country", too: "Malaysia, with a GDP per capita of $4,175, is firmly established as a middle-income country." [12]
Actual sentence: "Malaysia, with a GDP per capita of $4,175, is firmly established as a middle-income country and has laid a strong foundation for further development."
Your quote: "Malaysia is now a middle income nation..." [13]
Actual sentence: "We have been comparing the west African state of Ghana and the Asian Tiger economy of Malaysia. They both won independence from Britain in the same year, 1957. Malaysia is now a middle income nation, while Ghana remains very poor."
Other websites and articles have their own POV and their own definition of what "middle-income country" means to them. With the exception of the BBC article and CIA sourcebook (which also may include POV issues), would you vouch them to be NPOV (which is what Wikipedia is) instead of just credible, as opposed to the official webpage of a UN site?
As you have stated earlier, you have a personal POV that Malaysia is not as advanced as Japan nor the United States. Seriously, we're really as not as advanced as them, but that doesn't mean that Malaysia doesn't even deserve to be called an upper-middle income country. __earth has already proven that your claims about Malaysia not being able to fully contain infectious diseases holds no water.
Your POV basis is that just because Malaysia ranks nearer among African countries in a single list, it just does not make sense to you. You're not the only person from the Western side of the world to look down / look small on Malaysia, but as a Malaysian, I have the right to rebutt your assumptions and set things right. --Andylkl (talk) 09:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I would use the World Bank reference, which seems more authoritative than CIA, for this and other economy stats. -- Vsion 10:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Whoa, are you accusing me of plagiarism, Edgar? Sorry to break this to you but nationmaster copies almost everything from wikipedia. __earth 10:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

All of the quotes still say the same thing: "Malaysia is a middle-income country." There are countless sources that state this. So I don't know what kind of "twisting" you're talking about. There is nothing in the full sentences that contradicts the fact that Malaysia is viewed as anything other than a "middle-income" country.

The only source that anyone has stated here claiming Malaysia is "an upper-middle-income country" is the World Bank which doesn't even have a category for "middle-income" countries, only "upper-middle-income" and "lower-middle-income". So Wikipedia would be using a categorization term that is specifically geared to World Bank specifications. Regardless, it seems that you've acknowledged that the CIA and BBC are credible sources (not sure if you counted the United Nations and you seem to have dismissed the Asian Development Bank as a "credible" source). That's two (or three or four) credible sources against one (or zero).

On malaria and typhoid, there might be isolated cases of these diseases in Singapore or the U.S., but they are rare. Anyhow, the CIA does not list either as risk countries. However, Malaysia is listed as "high risk":

--- Major infectious diseases degree of risk: high food or waterborne diseases: bacterial diarrhea, hepatitis A, and typhoid fever vectorborne diseases: dengue fever and malaria are high risks in some locations (2004) ---

And nobody's accused you, Earth, of plagiarism. Please don't jump to conclusions. By the way, if Nationmaster copied this from Wikipedia, then why does it say "middle-income" in Nationmaster and not "middle-upper-income"? There are many, many sources that use the sentence seen in Nationmaster and they ALL seem to say "middle-income". Only Wikipedia seems to have edited it to "upper-middle-income".

Anyow, both of you have become very emotional and I don't think you should be editing this article as naturally NPOV would be impossible.--Sir Edgar 23:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

And I can prove you using other credible sources that does list Malaysia as an "upper-middle-income country" with some quoting their info from the World Bank:
From FAO.org (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations): "According to the World Bank, Malaysia is an upper-middle income country." [14]
From BTWP.org (Banking With The Poor): "Malaysia is classified as an upper middle income country by the World Bank." [15]
From IAS.org.uk (Institute of Alcohol Studies): "Malaysia is an "upper middle-income" country on the world scale and among the most rapidly growing economies in the world, with an annual growth rate above eight per cent in recent years." [16]
From acdi-cida.gc.ca (Canadian International Developement Agency): "Malaysia has achieved remarkable economic progress, and is now an upper middle-income country with a per capita GDP of US $3,815 (in 1994)." [17]
From odi.org.uk (Overseas Developement Institue): "The High-Income Country category (which includes Taiwan, Israel, Kuwait, Gibraltar, Falkland Islands and Cyprus) will 'progress to more advanced status' in 1996 (unless exempted by special review); but a number of relatively rich countries in the Upper Middle-Income Country category will remain 'developing countries' for some time. They include Greece, Malta, Barbados and Argentina (all of which are beyond the threshold of World Bank loan eligibility), as well as Brazil, Malaysia, Trinidad and Tobago and Mauritius which still qualify for World Bank loans."
From The Age (a notable Australian newspaper): "Looking down over the forest of stylish skyscrapers, parks and freeways that is Kuala Lumpur today, it is hard to believe that 30 years ago Malaysia was a Third World country where most people were poor farmers and exports were mostly rubber and tin. It is now an upper-middle-income country, one of the world's 12 largest manufacturing exporters, where virtually every child grows up well-fed, well-schooled, with a TV, safe water and good health care, and to be middle-class means owning a car and a home computer."
A credible and neutral international organisation (the World Bank has already stated that Malaysia is indeed an "upper-middle-income country". BBC may not be entirely NPOV as it is a British-based company, while the CIA World factbook may not be entirely NPOV too, (see BBC controversies and The World Factbook#Oddities and controversies). No amount of comparison of links available on the internet will change that fact.
Like most Wikipedia mirrors, it lifts the content at different times, and information there might be outdated if the article here at Wikipedia goes untouched too.
Like I have been trying to say earlier, the comparison of diseases in any particular country serves no purpose to differentiate "upper-middle-income" or "middle-income". It's like comparing apples and oranges.
You can claim for us to be "emotional", but I had only reply to your points stated and added my own personal opinion. No "emotional" NPOV edits have been recorded at the article page at the moment, but however this is a talk place for article discussion, "emotional", factual or not. Thank you very much for your advice but I trust myself to be in a NPOV state of mind while dealing with Wikipedia articles. --Andylkl (talk) 06:17, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
You keep quoting the World Bank over and over. Is that your only source?
Regardless, the fact remains that the sentence was lifted somewhere and everywhere, but on Wikipedia, it is as follows:
"Malaysia, a middle-income country, transformed itself from 1971 through the late 1990s from a producer of raw materials into an emerging multi-sector economy."
Stick to the facts, not image-buffing of your own country. --Sir Edgar 06:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
If you will read my other sources listed above (including the one from The Age), you'll find that it's not the only source. Wikipedia is a flexible and editable encyclopedia, I edit to improve, remove inaccuracies and polish up articles, not to glorify or "buff up" the image of my country. Besides, why are you so intent on disregarding the World Bank listing? --Andylkl (talk) 06:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Because it is a World Bank technical term, not a general term. You are holding on to it for dear life and ignoring the broader picture. It should be a generally accepted or definitely proven fact that Malaysia is "an upper-middle-income country" to be stated so in the Wikipedia article. I have always known Malaysia as "a middle-income country" and the (current) facts all seem to point that way.

This is reinforced by the fact that it is stated in the original sentence: "Malaysia, a middle-income country, transformed itself from 1971 through the late 1990s from a producer of raw materials into an emerging multi-sector economy." Someone has edited (or shall I say "twisted") this sentence to say otherwise, using a World Bank technical term.--Sir Edgar 06:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Edgar, why don't we take up this to the admin? It's better than calling others emotional and making personal attack. __earth 06:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I second that. --Andylkl (talk) 06:54, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Let's see here...

1. Your quote: "You can claim for us to be 'emotional'..." You just gave me explicit permission to call you emotional. Whether I did or not, it's up to the admin to decide. But now you're crying about it? Give me a break.

2. You can't win an argument, so you have to call up the admin. Feel free to do so, but that might just give you a reputation for being babies.

Stick to discussion of the article.

Which brings me to question the addition of "via the New Economic Policy":

"Malaysia, a middle-income country, transformed itself from 1971 through the late 1990s from a producer of raw materials into an emerging multi-sector economy via the controversial New Economic Policy (NEP)."

That seems POV to me. How do we know it was the NEP that helped, and not hindered, Malaysia's economic growth? If you are a proponent of free capitalism, you would argue that any kind of economic policy designed to restridibute wealth, especially along racial lines, would hurt progress. The Wikipedia article on the NEP even says, "the NEP has come under attack as being an inefficient system that promotes a laid-back attitude among the Bumiputras."

So I'm going to edit out the end of that sentence, too, because it is clearly in dispute whether the NEP helped Malaysia's economic transformation.--Sir Edgar 07:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

There you go against with ad hominem again. Regardless, the NEP is another issue and is irrelevent to this "middle income" issue. Get your line of thinking straight. __earth 07:24, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
__earth's current edit is much better than your deletion. By the way, an entry has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. --Andylkl (talk) 07:45, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Good, I hope this will prove that the two of you should be disqualified from editing any Malaysia-related articles due to not only your inherent (and obvious) bias, but childish and rude behavior.

This is a place for people to get information, not your personal playground. It's not a place to polish up your country's image and masturbate on nationalism.--Sir Edgar 07:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks before you plan to type your next sentence at Wikipedia. --Andylkl (talk) 08:11, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Added to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts for third party's view. __earth 08:34, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I've made a response to your comments.--Sir Edgar 00:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You are not supposed to sign that thing due to NPOV policy. Moreoever, I didn't add that "bad faith and false allegation" sentence and I've removed all POV comment, reverting it back to my first entry. __earth 05:39, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


This argument over whether Malaysia is a "middle income" or an "upper middle income" country is silly. Guys, take a step back and realize that the World Bank site classifies Malaysia as being in category 3 out of 4 (there's only 4 categories - low-income, low-middle-income, upper-middle-income and high-income). By that classification, Malaysia definitely belongs in the upper-middle-income category. On the other hand, if you want to classify countries into three categories of low-income, middle-income and high-income, Malaysia fits in the middle-income group. It's only a matter of semantics. In the end, the only answer that matters is something that is the consensus on wikipedia for how to describe countries. As there is a wikiproject on writing on countries, I suggest taking this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries. In fact, I'll start that now... Alex.tan 01:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Response to RfC and WQA

Hi all,

I come here from the dual postings at WP:RfC and Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Those are effectively two seperate requests, and so I will give my opinion on both points. I am not a Mediator, my opinion is not binding and is based on what I find on this talk page and in the article. Further users may wish to comment; if you feel that you cannot reach agreement among yourselves after that, you should study Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I hope it will not come to that.

This is a long comment; I apologise, but would urge you to read it carefully and thoroughly.

At its simplest, the dispute here is over a single word: "upper-". Bear that in mind; one word will not change the world. However, we are an encyclopedia and it is important to be accurate over what we say, so the issue is by no means irrelevant. We must base our proceedings on verifiable fact. POV is unwanted whatever its cause.

I personally think the easiest and lowest-conflict way to do this is simply to state the facts as they are provided rather than to apply any kind of interpretation to them (WP:NOR). The facts available from authoritative sources as I understand them are these:

  1. Malaysia is ranked 83 out of 232 in the world in terms of GDP-per-capita by the CIA World Factbook.
    • This data is based on a 2004 estimate but is held in a list last updated on 16th July 2005.
  2. Malaysia is considered to have an "upper-middle income economy" in terms of 2004 GNI-per-capita ([18]) by the World Bank Group.
    • This data is based on a total of 208 countries. These data do not rank countries in a top-to-bottom list.
    • The definition of "upper-middle income" is given here andhere. This is a 2004 per-capita GNI of between $3256 and $10065 per capita.
  3. Malaysia is considered to be a "moderately indebted" country by the World Bank Group.
    • The definition is given here.
  4. Malaysia is described as a "middle-income country" by the Asian Development Bank.
    • This is because "...these countries have access only to nonconcessional funding from ADB."
  5. Malaysia is described as a "middle-income country" by the UNDP [19].
    • It does not divide "middle" into "upper" and "lower". Middle-income is a 2002 per-capita GNI of $736–$9075.
  6. Both "upper-middle" and "middle" income are used in the media.

I have discarded link [6] in favour of the other UN link above, since [6] does not provide a basis for its claim. I do not think that links [4], [5], [7] and [10] provide any additional facts that are of encyclopedic use since they are either taken from the other sources (notably the CIA and World Bank) or are academic assertion, in one case being a student essay. Reference [9] is difficult to include here since no basis is given in that article for the claims made. References [15], [16] and [17] rely on the World Bank data so provide nothing new ([17] uses speech marks, which makes it appear taken from somewhere). Reference [18] does not say how it classifies countries, and I am unconvinced of the authority of Canadian organizations to comment on Malaysian issues. The ODI appears also to rely on World Bank data (I've read the whole article), and also refers to 1996 as in the future so is too far out of date. I trust I do not need to debate the authority of an Australian newspaper in comparison to the other references, whether it is notable or not.

I think the above list of facts should all be presented, with the relevant external references, in the section of the article in question. That section should be prefaced with something along the lines of

"...the economy of Malaysia is usually classified as either middle-income or upper-middle income, depending on the classification scheme in use...".

Then a sterile presentation of the above facts, along with the qualifications appropriate to each will present evidence for both descriptions, give a factual, statistical and authoritative basis for each of them and, most importantly, be unchallengable. The qualifications are important since they specify the scope and meaning of the statistics. There is no need for interpretation of the above facts, and I cannot see any room for discrediting any of the sources.

The only interpretation I can see is to ask "how does the World Bank scale divide up the CIA data"? In fact, such a mapping is difficult since one measures GDP and the other GNI per-capita. However, the raw numbers in the CIA table put all countries from CIA position 82–152 into the World Bank's "upper-middle income" category. Malaysia is at no. 83. However, this comparison is unofficial and not based on comparing like-with-like. I do not think that it should be included in the article. I have mentioned it here out of interest, and as a means to saying I do not think the comparison is valid.

I would advise against a "witch hunt" to find more sources for either description; it would achieve nothing. More importantly, it could not add anything that the preamble does not already say and, backed up as the preamble is, more sources would not really add any additional credence to either claim since both are credible. As for Fact 6, I do not think it necessary to provide an infinite list of quotes in support of each. I think it can be merely stated with reference to each side's favourite single media source. Please make that source a trusted international media outlet and merely provide a link to the article. Do not attempt to paraphrase it: that implies interpretation.

Wikiquette

I think the debate has, for the most part, been carried out with as cool a set of heads as can be expected on a contentious issue. There was no need for User:Sir Edgar's final remark and several of his(?) remarks include language that is unlikely to de-escalate. De-escalation (i.e. eventual consensus) should be the aim of every remark. Equally, User:Andylkl's suggestion of a "twisting" of facts is almost certain to irritate someone and does not further the debate. Simply say you disagree, and say calmly why. It is apparent from User:Sir Edgar's comment on WQA that he feels put-upon — evidently a more conciliatory approach could have been taken by User:Andylkl and User:Earth. I have no business assigning blame here (and I do not think there is any to assign). I think both sides should take a deep breath, re-read my comments and take another deep breath. Then, come back here with a genuine desire to make the best article you can, with respect for each other's feelings. I will watchlist this article and talk page. -Splash 02:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you, Splash, for taking the time to review the discussion and provide an analysis and commentary. I sincerely appreciate your effort here.

Wikipedia should be NPOV and stick to the facts. I come here to get information, not for a national image-polishing job.

It appears that the original sentence is from the CIA:

"Malaysia, a middle-income country, transformed itself from 1971 through the late 1990's from a producer of raw materials into an emerging multi-sector economy."

This was then edited to "an upper-middle income country" and a totally POV comment about the NEP being attributed for the economic growth was also included before being added to the Wikipedia article on Malaysia.

The vast majority of sources (CIA, BBC, ADB, UN, and more) have all described Malaysia as "a middle-income country". It is obvious that the World Bank categorization is using a specific methodology that is not for general use.

I do not appreciate being accused of twisting quotes when it is apparent that I am trying to correct a twisted quote.--Sir Edgar 03:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Splash. Anyway, I think both sides to read his comment properly instead of trying to score points further and trying to call others names. The issue remain a matter of source, not nationalism, at least for me. If it was a matter of nationalism, we couldn't really say WB is pro-Malaysia, could we? __earth 05:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I am so sick of hearing about the damn World Bank... I've told you over and over again that you have to rely on more than one source to make a general statement. You cannot focus on World Bank terminology just to make your country look better.

Regardless, what appears to have happened is that a sentence was lifted from the CIA site and edited improperly. I've fixed this and I promise to study more about Malaysia so I can edit this article further as it's obvious that it is being monitored POV by at least two people.--Sir Edgar 09:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

First of all, thank you very much to User:Splash for spending your time and effort for coming up with a fair and neutral opinion on this issue, and thanks also to User:Alex.tan for bringing this up in WikiProject Countries to make sure that a similar dispute does not happen again.
To make things clearer, the only thing that irked me was that you basically used took quotes from someone else, chopped off some key words and used the edited quote to support your statement. In my opinion, this is no more different from adding additional words in quotes, putting words in others' mouths or tampering with evidence in a court of law all in the name of correcting wrongs. I very much disagree with such tampering of quotes. Splash's advise has hit the right spot on not attempting to paraphrase.
However on second thought, I do admit that "twisted" would probably be too harsh of a word to be used, I retract that sentence where I mentioned the word "twisted" earlier back and I apologise if I had seem to be rude to you. And for the record, I have never, and will never use any kind of name-calling towards any other Wikipedians. You, on the other hand have.
I'm willing to give and take and accept Splash's proposed solution ("...the economy of Malaysia is usually classified as either middle-income or upper-middle income, depending on the classification scheme in use...") for the benefit of the article. Instead of extending this dispute further, Sir Edgar, do you accept the proposed solution? --Andylkl (talk) 10:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Might I add Edgar, POV according to your POV? Anyway, I'm fine with Splash's suggestion. Maybe we should quote source too to make it a little transparent. Furthermore, let's rewrite the whole econ section. Don't like the idea that we are dependent on CIA factbook. Discussion on rewrite is at Talk:Malaysia#Rewrite_on_economy_section __earth 10:50, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Edgar, I must have missed something, so could you please explain to me what is wrong with Splash's proposed solution, supported by Andy? This issue is so petty, it's laughable. At least the edit warriors on the Israel-Palestine articles are talking about matters that concern much of the world and have cost hundreds of lives on both sides, but here we are discussing whether Malaysia is a middle income or upper-middle income country? I honestly couldn't care less concerning this issue, but I think what really makes it hard to classify Malaysia is the relatively large disparity between the rural folk in the villages and the urbanised cities. I personally think middle income is more suitable and succint, but even then, I don't find anything to argue with about upper-middle income either. Johnleemk | Talk 14:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am relieved to see that the discussion appears to at least have withered away. I see also that the Economy section of the article has been rewritten considerably. It does not include any mention of income level at all — this probably the best solution: simply remove that which causes the disagreement, especially as it is definitely non-crucial in this case. May the further discussions on this talk page will be amicable and productive! -Splash 02:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:LAME

This is HILARIOUS! Added the 'upper' dispute to WP:LAME. -Borisblue 21:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your insightful contribution to the discussion. -Splash 22:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey, no prob. That's what WP:LAME is for! Amazing how much time and effort goes into the most petty disputes. It's nice that we have a page that puts everything into perspective. Brilliant resolution btw. You're definitely getting my vote for admin. Borisblue 00:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I think I'm gonna kill meself. __earth 16:21, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I don't share the same sense of humour as you, but I fail to see the humour in this talk page. --Andylkl (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The debate on whether the appropriate classification of Malaysia as a middle income or upper middle income country is definitely LAME in my book. Johnleemk | Talk 15:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Commonwealth and ASEAN

Hmm, why aren't those templates included in the page? __earth 10:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

We still haven't worked out whether categories have made templates redundant or not; some argue they have, but others say they haven't. So I guess it depends on the editors' whims. Johnleemk | Talk 11:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Demographics and Culture overlap

I am just passing through (so I'm not going to edit anything), but I couldn't help notice that there is significant overlap in the Demographics and Culture parts of this article. There are also at least one contradiction: the former says that 7% of the population is Indian; the latter specifies 7% _and_ 10% in different sentences... - Dilberito 12:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

With regards to Malaysian culture, is it true that men are not allowed to wear their hair in a mop top or pudding bowl (or indeed in even longer styles)? I have a pudding bowl and I'm planning to visit the country. 129.11.76.215 15:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen hairstyles a thousand times more outlandish than that here. :P You're definitely welcomed to visit. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 16:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

TV licenses

I distinctly recall that there used to be television licences in Malaysia but they were ended recently. Could someone clarify this and/or add this info the to the television licence page please? Nil Einne 21:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Malaysian losses in WW2

Can anyone provide authoritative information on Malaysian Civilian losses in WW2 due to the Japanese occupation ?--Berndd11222 23:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You might find Battle of Malaya and Battle of Singapore of some help. __earth 04:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Only Relevant Languages Please!

I don't see why there is a need to put the Chinese (up to both Simplified and Traditional!) and Tamil name of Malaysia on the article, those are languages widely spoken in Malaysia, yes, but they are not official languages. We're not Singapore. Malaysia has only 2 official languages, and the names need to reflect them. Will be changing them shortly.

I agree. A country's name should be displayed in English and the official language only. -- Saikiri~ 21:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi! Please take a look at Template talk:Infobox Country - we're currently trying to standardize infobox usage, that's why I reverted; if you insist, though, I won't revert a second time. You're welcome to join the discussion! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 12:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


Official languages?

Malay (National), English, Chinese, Tamil? Isn't it just Malay? __earth 09:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed everything but Malay. See http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Malaysia#Article_152 __earth 09:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that some subjects taught at government public universities used english as primary language. Can someone confirm this and if so, what is the status of the English with regards to Malaysia's official language? - 16:23, 04 Mar 2006 (UTC)

The English language was an alternative language of instruction in schools of all level until it was was gradually phased out from 1970 onwards and English medium schools and institutes of higher education had their language of instruction changed to Malay. This was achieved in totality by 1982 when public universities completed the transition. Alternative language of instruction in government and government aided schools, apart from the Malay language, was only available in the Mandarin and Tamil languages for primary levels only. Nonetheless English was retained as a compulsory second language in all primary and secondary schools. This only recently changed with the re-introduction of the English language as the language of instruction in Mathematics and Science subjects in all levels. However, this does not imply that English has the status of an official language in Malaysia, at least legally. English was only retained as an official language with the caveat that this status be abolished ten years after Independence (which meant it ceased to be so in West Malaysia by 1967 and the East Malaysian states by 1973). English, however, remains an important language of communications among Malaysians and it is not uncommon to see Malaysians use English for multiple purposes, even for day to day conversation at home. - Bob K 09:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the official language of Malaysia's changed form malay language to Malaysian Language (Bahasa Malaysia), just like Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia).141.213.240.242 07:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

that's just lame politics going on. Constitutionally, its Malay (ie Bahasa Melayu). __earth (Talk) 08:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Other languages!

I see that the Chinese and Tamil names of Malaysia have been put back again, along with the Jawi script. Jawi I can except, but I will be removing the Chinese and Tamil version for this: Please scrutinise Malaysia's Federal Constitution, especially the provision regarding languages. Its Article 152 Section 1 reads;

The national language shall be the Malay language and shall be in such script as Parliament may by law provide.

This is unlike Singapore's Federal Constitution Article 153A (1), where;

Malay, Mandarin, Tamil and English shall be the 4 official languages in Singapore.

Thus, Chinese and Tamil are no more official then French, Spanish or even Hebrew is in Malaysia and consequently do not warrant appearence in this article. The fact they are widely spoken within the Federation does not justify their inclusion for if that were the case, Kandazan-Dusun, Iban and other languages widely spoken will also have to be added. I say we keep strictly to the rulebook and keep the official language as the name for Malaysia. Malaysia is a multi-racial country for sure, but official language is official language. Having said that, I would like to observe and correct the persistant myth among fellow Malaysians in the peninsular that Malaysia is merely a state of "Malays, Chinese and Indians". This is of course absolute nonsense. Malaysia's multi-faceted, multi-ethnic inhabitants go beyond mere Malay, Chinese and Indian presence. Lest one forget, there are such states called Sabah and Sarawak to the east consisting of Iban, Kadazan, Kelabit and other races to name a few, their existance of which is yet to be duly emphasised. In addition, there is a fast growing European and Eurasian community as well, especially in cities. So I say lets banish this perception from our minds and recognise Malaysia for what it truly is, a melting pot of peoples from all over the Earth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.95.153.204 (talk • contribs) .

Dear anonymous user, allow me to weigh in on this. English Wikipedia is not bound by the laws of Malaysia. An article on Malaysia is only linked to Malaysia, the government, in the sense that many of its contributors may be citizens of Malaysia. Chinese and Tamil is widely spoken in Malaysia, these people of Malaysia think of the country name in said language. It is therefore useful and relevant information for readers of Wikipedia to see and know these names. --BenjaminTsai Talk 09:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia however is bounded by its own rules. So, we just need to add the official language(s) + common English name. For other name in other languages, there's other wikipedia in other languages. __earth 02:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Where exactly is the policy that you're citing that is in support of censoring relevant information? Precedence from other articles suggests the inclusion of alternate names in common use within the country. --BenjaminTsai Talk 04:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Please, this is not censorship. In fact, the usage of other languages is mentioned in the main article. If it were censorship, all matter pretaining to the other languages usage in Malaysia would be removed. In fact, in the first paragragh, there are SEVEN ways how to call Malaysia in various languages and scripts.
The official language box can only have Malay because Malay is the only official language. Unlike India, South Africa, or Canada or Singapore of which their constitutions say there are more than one official language, Malaysian constitution explicitly says only Malay is the official language. Thus - only Malay in the official language box. Wikipedia's job is to spread information, not make new information. See WP:NOR.
For usual convention, see Template_talk:Infobox_Country. For general rule of thumb on naming, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). In fact, if we were to follow WP's guideline tightly, the first paragragh SHOULDN'T list the other SIX languages/scripts. An implicit compromise was made earlier on this if you cared to check the page history. If you push this, according to WP:UE, it's likely that all other languages will be removed, undoing the implicit compromise.
As for precedents from other article, see Portal:Montreal/Discussions/English Names/Draft policy. Also, Wikipedia_talk:Language_policy. See also United States of America - no Spanish despite Spanish is the second most spoken language in the US. How about Indonesia? As for your precedence, could you point to any where the constitution says there's only one official language while there are many other major spoken languages that are included in the box? __earth 04:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the infobox, I'm only talking about presenting the different names that people of Malaysia know the country by in the introductory paragraph. The links you present actually do not support your view.
The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known. When the native name is written in a non-Latin alphabet this representation should be included along with Latin alphabet transliterations and English alphabet transliterations. - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)
By the above, since Malaysia is commonly known by its Chinese and Tamil name by the people of Malaysia, it should be included. --BenjaminTsai Talk 05:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Its common name - English (Federation of Malaysia). Its native, by which is official name - Malay (Persekutuan Malaysia). __earth 06:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, and a thing can have more than one common name, hence "should list all common names". Other common names that Malaysia is known by people in Malaysia are its Chinese and Tamil name. Hence, it should go into the introductory paragraph. --BenjaminTsai Talk 07:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
No. A common name(s) is of which everybody able to understand - which accidentally, English - the lingua franca of en.wikipedia.org. If it were in zh.wikipedia.org, then the common name is in Chinese, if in fr.wikipedia.org, in French, if in jp.wikipedia.org, in Japanese, etc. __earth 08:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
A name that everyone is able to understand is a universal name, not a common name. A common name is just a name that something is commonly known by. In this case, the Chinese and Tamil name of Malaysia is commonly known and used by a large subset of the people of Malaysia and hence is relevant and important. --BenjaminTsai Talk 08:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh boy. These semicolons are confusing. There are too many of 'em.
About universal name, I'd argue that it's still the same as common name because universal name is still bounded by language.
Regardless, I think the current edition is stable, at least concerning languages. I think you would agree to that too. Happy new year to you. =) __earth 08:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I guess you spoke too soon, should have knocked on wood. :-) --BenjaminTsai Talk 14:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
LOL! yeah. I should have done that. __earth 04:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, fine, common names eh? Well, Benjamin Tsai, as I have cited in my first paragraph, Malaysia is not a state of merely Malays, Chinese and Indians, "common" though they may be. There are other races that exist in this state as well who "think" of the name of Malaysia in "their language". These languages henceforth are equally "relevant" and "important". It does not matter if there are many or few of them, the fact is they exist, and we are talking about equality here, not quantity, are we not? You have conviniently ignored all this. Let's see you list them all, and untill I see them, I will actively oppose any inclusion of any other language besides the official and the English language as the name proscribing Malaysia. Another thing is that while the races you cite think of the name "Malaysia" in their language, it would be ridiculous to claim that they don't know the name of Malaysia in English and especially Malay, the national language understood, spoken and loved by all. Hence, there won't be any "confusion" should they not see the name of Malaysia in their mother tougue in this article. Might I also remind you that this article is for the benefit of the international community, not just Malaysians. Putting in the Chinese and Tamil names could be misleading in the sense it reinforces the perception that Malaysians are merely Malays, Chinese and Indians, a perception that is false and offensive to Malaysian minorities. If you wish to see the name in Chinese and Tamil so much, there is always the Chinese and Tamil version of Wikipedia. - Anoymous User
Anonymous User, I may be wrong but it feels like you are trying to push a particular POV through your opposition of putting in particular bits of pertinent information into the article. I think that's what it really boils down to, and if that is what you're trying to do, I don't think this is the appropriate place to do it. --BenjaminTsai Talk 16:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear Anoymous User, just using this as a rule of thumb, the government owned Radio Television Malaysia broadcasts news on TV through Malay, English, Mandarin and Tamil. And it's an undeniable fact that local free-to-air television stations air programs in those four languages, and hence the article should reflect on the main languages used in Malaysia. I don't find the possibility of anybody misunderstanding it as a good reason to remove those two other names. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 16:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
POVs as a matter of fact are indeed pushed on the Wikipedia all the time, Mr. Benjamin Tsai. Just take a look around. This is in fact one of the purposes of the "Discussion" section that accompanies each article. Your assertion that "this is not the place to do it" is invalid. It is OK to have a POV, provided that it is as close as possible to a NPOV. This it can be by being fair, and in this context, representative of all ethnicities living in Malaysia. Now, your position, that is to say, your POV that the Chinese and Tamil languages warrant an appearance when discribing the name of this nation: Malaysia, in defiance of the fact that other ethnicities (and consequently other languages)exist in Malaysia is not NPOV. You don't even have to refer to the Wikipedia's NPOV policy regulations to know this, as it is basic logic. Now, I may be wrong here, but I assume that compilation of the exact number of languages spoken in Malaysia may be too burdensome to you, and I understand that. That is why I say it is better to keep it official by including the national language only. However, if you insist that the other languages in Malaysia be included, then fine, but all have to be included so as to be fair. There cannot be an in between as this may leed to a false impression that some ethnicities and thier languages are more important then other ones. Another thing is that a POV has to be backed by facts from credible sources. Thus as a backing for my position, I invite you and all others interested in this dispute to read the Demographics section of this very article itself. Read it carefully, consider the facts, then look at what Mr. Benjamin Tsai is trying to advocate, then ask yourselves if it is fair or not. As for what you cite, Andylkl, that would be fine only that Radio Televisyen Malaysia also owns and operates radio stations that brodcast in other languages as well, including Iban, Kadazan-Dusun, and some aboriginal languages, not just Chinese and Tamil. The fact that they don't appear on the telly is not definative, as there is nothing to say that the government will not consider having news and programmes in these languages if the people who speak them want it. And as for private free-to-air stations, they don't really count as it depends on the financial capacity and desire of the language speakers concerned to have them. - Anoymous User
When I suggested that this is not the place to be pushing a POV, I was talking about Wikipedia as a whole. Clearly the talk page is used for hashing out the differences between editors, but not for advocating one POV over another. As for the demographics of Malaysia, it's 65% Bumiputra, 25% Chinese, 9% Indian, and 1% other. I think it's pretty clear that the linguistic realities of Malaysia is that both Chinese and Tamil are in common use alongside Malay. Based on this, I feel that it is proper to include the other common names in the article. --BenjaminTsai Talk 10:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

Hello all. What is the origin of the name of this country and what was the reason for its name change from Malaya to Malaysia? Does it have anything to do with the relations with Singapore or East Malaysia? Or was the name coined in analogy with the neighbouring -neasia to mean "Malayonesia"? (far fetched) //Big Adamsky 02:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I saw on Discovery Channel some time ago, that it's Malaya + the 3 s's from Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah. So, Malay + Sia. __earth 02:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
hmmm..somehow that some people try to create a sense of difficulty to us, where we keen to give right infomation to public. They try to revert all the edition just for their "correct" perception. --Johnson 02:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you have your own theories? Would love to hear it. __earth 04:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Just in my opinion, I suggest that we should put a vote on whether should include other languages for the name "Malaysia" and the result of the poll should be the final. This is only the way to solve the conflict. If something wrong with my idea, comments are welcomed to correct my idea. By the way, I am also Malaysian too, Chinese from Alor Star.--Johnson 09:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I thought your were talking about etymology. The discussion about inclusion of other languages is in another section. And I don't think nationality/enthicity relevant though. I know several American professors that know more about Malaysia than most Malaysians do. The point is, all you need is knowledge on the subject. __earth 11:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I was curious as to the origin of the name, nothing else. //Big Adamsky 18:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Haha..sorry for the wrong post at wrong section. Pardon me for the mistake. However, I reckon that only the english name of malaysia should be included only since this is the english version of Wikipedia and the actual name according to constitution of malaysia is FEDERATION OF MALAYSIA and the government tends to use MALAYSIA only for catching international intentions. That's just my opinion.--Johnson 13:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I beg to differ. Article 1.1 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia states that "The Federation shall be known, in Malay and in English, by the name Malaysia." I have always been a little curious why the name "Federation of Malaysia" was used and I changed it once before but the change was reverted. -- Bob K 14:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Page lock

If the reversions continue, I suggest we approach an admin and ask for a lock. __earth 09:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, semi-protection seems like a good idea now. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 09:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not completely clear to me that what is happening here is really vandalism and not an editorial dispute. It may be better to request mediation. --BenjaminTsai Talk 09:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is page in half?

On my screen I see a large space in the history part. Can that be removed? --Snakes 01:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Is Chinese an official language of Malaysia?

The article "List of official languages" in the English Wikipedia and the article "Malaysia" in the Chinese Wikipedia state that Chinese is also an official language of Malaysia. Is that really true? If so, we should add that to the "official language(s)" entry of the template. -Alanmak 17:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

For your information, English, Chinese, and Tamil are languages that are used widely in Malaysia, but the official language is Malay and Malay only. Someone needs to revise those articles. :) --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 17:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Since Chinese is not the official language of Malaysia, I removed Malaysia from "official language in" list in the article of "Chinese language". Same is on the article of "Chinese language" of Chinese Wikipedia. It was me who added it in those 2 places in the first place. I apologize. I did so merely because I saw Chinese language under the list of official language in the Malaysia article without questioning. --Chochopk 06:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I made sure that the article of "Chinese language" on Wikipedias in most of the other languages do not list Malaysia as a country that uses it as an official language. Non roman/latin script languages are skipped in this process, except for Korean and Japanese. Someone please do the same for the article of Malaysia --Chochopk 07:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I anticipated something like this would happen, thats why I removed references to the name "Malaysia" in Chinese and Tamil in the first place. While there is nothing in Wikipedia policy to suggest that it should be bound by the description provided by the laws of the country concerned when describing it (A lacuna or a technicality, rather then intended official WIkipedia policy) to keep official would remove any ambiguity especially where issues as this nature are concerned - Anonymous User

Percentage of Indians in Malaysia

Related issue: Percentage of Indians in the population of Malaysia. There's an inconsistency in the article. Under "Demographics," it is stated that "Malaysians of Indian descent comprise about 10% of the population," while under "Culture": "Malaysia is a multi-ethnic society, consisting of 65% Malays and other indigenous tribes, 25% Chinese, 7% Indians." Clearly, Indians cannot comprise both 10% and 7% of the population of Malaysia. The only way the two figures might make sense is if the additional 3% have some Indian ancestry but are classified as Bumiputras, Eurasians, Chinese, etc. I don't have a copy of the census figures, but would someone who does please determine the most accurate percentage and edit the two passages for consistency?

Michael 09:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Presumably the remaining three percent are "lain-lain" (others). They could be Eurasian, etc. Johnleemk | Talk 11:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


I think the line "The Philippine claim is still on-going, and has led to a war. " is erroneous because there has never been a war with Malaysia and the Philippines. -Isao

information to sattle in malaysia

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

try http://www.malaysia.alloexpat.com/ __earth (Talk) 12:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Official language

The terminology of the official language of Malaysia, actually, already changed from Malay to Bahasa Malaysia (Malaysian Language). Hope the wikipedians take note about it.141.213.240.242 04:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It was so for a while. However there have been a resurgence of the term Bahasa Melayu even within DPB published works and DBP being the arbitrers of the language would be the best guide on this Whodhellknew 02:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just what is meant by "Federation of Malaysia" having no official sanction anyway?

I see someone has quoted Malaysia's Federal Constitution as follows;

Article 1(1) of the Federal Constitution states that "The federation shall be known, in Malay and English, as Malaysia". The name "Federation of Malaysia" therefore has no official sanction.

Does this mean someone out there actually disputes refering to Malaysia as the Federation of Malaysia? If so, let me just put in my 2 sen in response. First of all, I really don't see what the fuss is all about, given the triviality of the matter. I would say (and I am sure the reasonable avarage Malaysian would agree with me) that the name "Federation of Malaysia" is simply a formal variant of "Malaysia". Article 1(1) of the Federal Constitution begins with "The federation shall...be known as Malaysia". So, the Constitution acknowleages that Malaysia is a Federation and is known as Malaysia, so it's not wrong to refer it as the Federation of Malaysia. The question of official sanction here does not arise since the words be known imply common parlance, not official sanction. As for where "official sanction" is concerned, I am sure there enough evidence in practice, as indicated in government websites and etc. to attest to there being official sanction, both as "Federation of Malaysia" in the English language and "Persekutuan Malaysia" in Bahasa Melayu. - Anonymous User

There is only one correct name, which is set out in the Constitution. The fuss is made by people who keep replacing Malaysia with Federation of Malaysia and Persekutuan Malaysia and the jawi equivalent in the opening sentence of the article and in the country box. No-one in Malaysia ever uses the name "Federation of Malaysia" or "Persekutuan Malaysia", whether formally or informally, and it is ridiculous to invent a formal variant when none exists. Malaysia is a federation, it is also a country, a constitutional monarchy, a parliamentary democracy, etc. Are you suggesting "Country of Malaysia" is another "formal variant"?
It is therefore wrong for there to be a Malay name and an English name in the country box. The reason we have Article 1(1) of the Constitution is that it was decided in 1963 that the name of the country would be the same in Malay and English, unlike before when we had "Federation of Malaya" and "Persekutuan Tanah Melayu". Just look at the postage stamps from 1957-63 to see how much space it took just to print the country's name. It is introducing "fuss" and complexity for the sake of it. Andrew Yong 14:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive

Not on Malaysia but related, History of Southeast Asia is currently a nominee for Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the nominee by voting for it! __earth (Talk) 03:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Motto

"Bersekutu Bertambah Mutu" would literally mean "Unity adds quality", and not unity is strength, unless that is an "official" translation which i am not aware of. explanation? Khing 14:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The official translation is Unity is strength. [20]. Literal translation doesn't work. __earth (Talk) 14:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
awesome. thanks. Khing 14:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Page "Malaysia" should be semi-protected

Like what __Earth and Andylkl said above, I think that this page should be semi-protected as soon as possible. Many IP address users are vandalising the page by adding nonsense into it. I fully agree to the semi-protection of that page. Could someone (administrator) please make the page semi-protected as soon as possible? The Malaysia page is being vandalised very badly. Thank you and I really appreciate it if an administrator does an action about the Malaysian page. Acs4b 08:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree -- Bob K 14:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't. If this page were placed in WP:RFPP I would decline protection, and so would most other administrators. There isn't a high volume of anon vandalism at all (there are a lot of good faith noob edits, but these aren't what semiprotection is designed to prevent) Borisblue 04:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

chinese speaking territories?

Malaysia is not a chinese speaking territories. Having some people speaking chinese doesnt justify the need to categorise it into that. THe territories here actually were referring to some part of their region having loose governmental control and most of them speak chinese (perfect example is Taiwan). If you want to say Penang is a chinese speaking 'state', it is still not right, because having chinese becoming a majority, still doesnt mean everything there have been changed into chinese language. THank you, please understand 70.52.72.159. Zack2007 04:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved this conversation from my talk page:


__earth (Talk) 04:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

GDP (PPP)

I noticed that the GDP (PPP) figure in the infobox was changed for a number of times, usually to a higher figure and ranking. According to the List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita article, Malaysia has a GDP (PPP) per capita of USD $11,201 and ranks 61st in the list. Does anyone know what's going on? Joshua Chiew 08:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Template frenzy

Alright. There are officially too many templates running around at the very bottom of the article. I propose we remove a majority of them. __earth (Talk) 04:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My goodness! You're very right about that. I think the regional templates aside from {{Asia}} are possible candidates for removal. --Polaron | Talk 04:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. Too many templates are just making the page longer and some are not really very useful. I personally think that aside from {{Countries of Asia}}, {{States and Federal Territories of Malaysia}}, {{Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)}}, and {{Countries and territories of Southeast Asia}} the others should be removed. The other templates (ex:G15, D8, and OIC) can be seen in their article. However, the categories should not be removed as it is not taking up too much of space in the article. Thank you. Acs4b 06:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Expulsion of Singapore

Singapore most definitely was unilaterally kicked out of Malaysia, at the request of the Tunku and with the support of Parliament against the wishes of LKY/the PAP, and "expelled" is a perfectly NPOV way of putting it. See History of Singapore#Separation. Jpatokal 05:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think expelled is the proper term, but most Singaporeans would probably prefer to hear "seperated". That said, I believe that the term "expelled" should be kept. –- kungming·2 (Talk) 06:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem is that it was a de jure separation (a secession, actually, that was permitted by Malaysia) but a de facto expulsion. The Tunku did not literally force Singapore out; he just forced LKY and the PAP to take it out. The issue is quite nuanced, so the article probably should mention that although it was a separation in name, it was an expulsion in reality. Johnleemk | Talk 16:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Msia-crest.jpg

Image:Msia-crest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malaysia/Archive_2&oldid=1142099021"