Letting Jakimm bulldoze it's way? The imposition of compulsory halal certification on all eateries could exacerbate polarization in Malaysia, leading to cultural fragmentation, economic strain on non-Muslim businesses, and a deterioration in social cohesion. A more inclusive and flexible policy would better serve Malaysia’s diverse population, promoting harmony and national unity.

The imposition of compulsory halal certification on all eateries could exacerbate polarization in Malaysia, leading to cultural fragmentation, economic strain on non-Muslim businesses, and a deterioration in social cohesion. A more inclusive and flexible policy would better serve Malaysia’s diverse population, promoting harmony and national unity.

This trend could also lead to cultural polarization, as halal certification becomes a marker of identity. The growing emphasis on certification may deepen the divide between religious and secular communities, especially in a nation that prides itself on pluralism. It can create a sense of exclusion for non-Muslim citizens who feel their business interests and lifestyles are being systematically sidelined.

The division created by halal certification has the potential to erode the delicate balance that has historically held Malaysia’s multiracial society together. Increased segregation of businesses, food choices, and even geographical spaces can fuel mistrust and weaken the shared sense of nationhood. This disunity is harmful not just to social harmony, but also to Malaysia’s economic development, which has long relied on diverse contributions from all ethnic groups.

The challenge for Malaysia moving forward is finding a balance between accommodating the religious requirements of its Muslim majority while maintaining inclusivity for non-Muslim citizens. Fostering mutual understanding, promoting cross-cultural business initiatives, and ensuring that religious regulations do not lead to economic or social exclusion will be critical.

The extension of halal certification beyond its traditional scope could further fragment Malaysian society along religious and cultural lines, particularly in diverse regions like Penang. This growing polarization threatens to undermine social unity, ultimately damaging the country’s future development and cohesion. A more inclusive approach that respects both religious needs and the rights of all citizens is necessary to prevent these negative outcomes.

Wil - very soon. You see - none of its tourist-focused eateries will pass the requirements for Halal certification (unless use bribery). This will lead to exodus of the conservatives from the island, leaving behind the progressive ones. This polarisation is inevitable and will prosper certain geographical areas (while others will have to live on the era before tech for clean water etc cetera)

Reputation of Ethnic Communities: Associating the use of a language with distrust or disloyalty could harm the reputation of Chinese and Indian communities, leading to defamation claims, particularly if the statement causes harm to the social standing or business opportunities of individuals within those communities.

Contradiction to National Values: The claim in question contradicts the foundational principles of mutual respect, harmony, and inclusivity. It undermines the collective effort toward national unity and integration.

Although the Rukun Negara is not a legally binding document, it outlines core values and principles meant to guide the nation, including the upholding of **"unity" and "diversity"** in society. Any action or statement that promotes division or undermines the unity of Malaysia's multicultural society goes against the spirit of the Rukun Negara.

Promotion of Racial Tension: By alleging that the use of non-Malay languages fosters distrust, such a statement could potentially stir up suspicion and animosity among ethnic groups, thereby violating the Sedition Act.

The Sedition Act 1948 criminalizes speech or actions that have the tendency to incite hatred against the government or to cause tension between different ethnic groups. A claim that suggests Chinese or Indians should not speak their mother tongues could be interpreted as inflammatory, especially if it promotes ethnic or racial discord.

Section 298A of the Penal Code: This provision makes it a criminal offense to cause disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will on the grounds of religion or race. A claim that unfairly targets Chinese or Indian Malaysians for speaking their languages could incite racial tension and be seen as an attempt to disrupt the peaceful coexistence of Malaysia's ethnic communities.

Freedom of Language as Expression: The Malaysian Constitution does not prohibit the use of any language, nor does it restrict communication in private spaces or informal settings. As such, attempting to curtail this freedom without legitimate grounds would infringe upon constitutional rights.

The claim that Chinese and Indian Malaysians conversing in their mother tongues causes distrust in the Malay community violates several legal and constitutional provisions. It contravenes **Articles 8, 10, and 152** of the Federal Constitution, which guarantee equality, freedom of expression, and protection of linguistic diversity. Additionally, such a claim could be seen as **inciting racial tension**, violating provisions under the **Penal Code and the Sedition Act**. Finally, the statement contradicts the spirit of the **Rukun Negara**, which emphasizes national unity and respect for Malaysia's diverse cultural and linguistic heritage.

Global Standards and Benchmarks: International assessments like the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) measure students' proficiency in these subjects globally. Reducing curriculum content could widen the performance gap between Malaysian students and their peers in countries with more rigorous standards, diminishing Malaysia's standing on the global stage.

Compromising Depth of Knowledge: By cutting the curriculum in half, students may not be able to explore topics in depth. Complex subjects like Science and Mathematics require comprehensive understanding, not superficial learning. The reduced content may force teachers to rush through important topics, preventing students from mastering fundamental concepts that are crucial for higher-level education and application in real-life problem-solving.

While the intention to reduce curriculum density might be to alleviate student stress, it could have far-reaching negative consequences for Malaysia's future workforce, competitiveness, and overall educational standards. Rather than simplifying the content, reforms should focus on enhancing teaching strategies and improving the overall learning environment.

Unprofessional results from dishonesty, self-deception and low personnel qualiy

While JAKIM was originally intended to serve as a coordinating body for Islamic affairs, its expanded role in multiple sectors of the government has led to unnecessary bureaucratic complexity without adding measurable or visible value. By duplicating roles that are already handled by specialized ministries and state authorities, JAKIM has created inefficiencies, added costs, and slowed down decision-making processes. Furthermore, its overreach into state religious autonomy and progressive democratic government functions raises questions about its relevance and effectiveness in modern governance.

JAKIM’s growing influence in secular government sectors, such as education, health, and welfare, raises concerns about the separation between religion and state functions. Its involvement in these areas often shifts the focus away from evidence-based or technical decision-making toward religious considerations, which may not always align with the broader public interest.

Bureaucratic Delays and Increased Costs

The expansion of JAKIM’s role across multiple ministries and sectors has led to increased administrative costs and delays in policy implementation. For instance:

In areas like public health, JAKIM’s involvement in approving guidelines related to Islamic practices, such as organ donation and vaccination, adds an extra bureaucratic step that slows down decision-making, often delaying vital public health initiatives.

The cost of maintaining JAKIM is substantial, with its budget growing year-on-year. This is especially notable given the lack of clear returns on investment in terms of improved public services or outcomes.

Impact: The bureaucratic complexity created by JAKIM results in inefficiencies that increase costs for the government without corresponding improvements in service delivery or policy outcomes. This adds to the financial burden of maintaining redundant administrative structures.

Lack of Measurable or Visible Outcomes

Despite its broad influence and substantial budget, there is little evidence that JAKIM’s activities have led to tangible improvements in the sectors it oversees:

Education: The quality of Islamic education in public schools remains a contentious issue, with debates over the relevance and modernization of religious curriculums. JAKIM’s role has not led to visible improvements in educational outcomes.

Halal industry: While Malaysia is recognized as a halal hub, much of the growth in the sector is attributed to private sector innovation and state-level initiatives rather than JAKIM’s direct involvement.
Social welfare: JAKIM’s involvement in managing zakat (charitable contributions) and religious welfare is largely redundant, as state-level religious councils are already responsible for these areas. There is no measurable improvement in the distribution of zakat or welfare under JAKIM’s purview.

Impact: The lack of clear, measurable outcomes suggests that JAKIM’s broad role does not add visible value to the sectors it influences. Its contributions are difficult to quantify, and any positive impact is more likely the result of other specialized government agencies or state bodies.

State Autonomy and Federal Overreach

JAKIM’s central role in regulating Islamic affairs at the federal level undermines the autonomy of state religious authorities, which are constitutionally empowered to manage their own religious matters.

Each Malaysian state, especially states like Sabah and Sarawak, has its own religious authority (mufti and council) to issue fatwas and manage Islamic affairs. JAKIM’s interventions often result in overlapping jurisdictions, leading to conflicting decisions between federal and state authorities.

In non-Muslim majority states like Sabah and Sarawak, where religion is more diverse, JAKIM’s influence can be seen as federal overreach, further complicating the state’s ability to govern local religious matters according to its unique context.

Impact: JAKIM’s influence does not respect the decentralized nature of Islamic governance in Malaysia, creating conflict with state authorities and adding unnecessary layers of governance, slowing down decision-making and policy implementation at the local level.

Halal Certification Redundancy

While halal certification is a core responsibility of JAKIM, there is already a well-established system of state-level religious authorities that issue halal certificates. Businesses seeking halal certification often face a dual process where they must deal with both JAKIM and state authorities.

This results in delays and added bureaucracy for businesses, with no clear improvement in the quality of halal oversight.

Additionally, some international markets rely on private halal certification bodies, which calls into question the necessity of JAKIM’s extensive bureaucratic control over this domain.

Impact: The duplication of halal certification between JAKIM and state authorities does not contribute to better standards but instead complicates and slows down the process, reducing efficiency for businesses and food producers.

JAKIM’s presence in almost every government department creates unnecessary overlap with functions that are already being handled by specialized agencies or ministries.

Health Ministry: Islamic guidelines on medical practices, halal medicines, and organ donation are already handled by dedicated health professionals with syariah expertise. JAKIM’s involvement complicates decision-making without adding expertise beyond what the ministry already has.
Education Ministry: Religious education is a state matter, and the ministry has its own Islamic education department. JAKIM’s interventions here are redundant, often leading to confusion over jurisdiction and policies.
Impact: Instead of streamlining processes, JAKIM adds layers of approvals and decision-making, increasing the time needed to implement policies and creating inefficiency across government departments.

Unlike Peninsular Malaysia, where Islam is the official religion and has a strong influence on public policies and laws, Sabah and Sarawak have more religious diversity. A significant portion of their population adheres to Christianity, indigenous beliefs, and other faiths. Under the MA63, both states were guaranteed autonomy over religious matters. Islam is not the official religion of these states, unlike in Peninsular Malaysia, and there is no constitutional requirement for their governments to promote Islam.

The federal government should ensure that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 is respected in its entirety, including the clauses regarding religious autonomy. This would help allay fears that religious institutions like Jakim are overstepping their bounds.

Combative, may be. But surely have to be immature, emotional and deluded

Did medical school in Russia provide training like GISHB for him to sell his backside? Or could the rumour that he grew up in one of those caretaker houses be true?

Halall slaughter is rooted in religious, ethical, and cultural values that emphasize human involvement, intentionality, and care for animal welfare. Automation, which focuses on efficiency and cost-effectiveness, often lacks the spiritual, ethical, and personalized dimensions

Human supervisors or halall-certified butchers are required to oversee the slaughter process, ensuring compliance with religious guidelines. In automated systems, maintaining the same level of oversight is impossible.

Automation leads to inconsistent results in terms of how animals are treated and slaughtered, particularly in large-scale operations. Halall standards demand precision and care in each individual slaughter, which can be guaranteed when using high-speed automated systems.

Meticulous halall food preparation, especially in the context of slaughtering, emphasizes specific religious and ethical principles that are incompatible with modern automation, people-less systems, and the robotic revolution.

Have they been keep poisoning majority of the ppl esp young ones?

Assuming he started working 25 years ago - earning RM1 million every year - sure got RM25.million.

Can she sue him for RM100mil?

Amanah should get Zaid as advisor to champion these principles, opposing its rival paspus' darksystem agenda, and win big in GE17 or 18

Better revenue for jkim (trillion) if only halal certified website and app will he allowed to be used here

Criteria:
1. Do not cause addiction
2. Got no harming effects to health
3. Pig free?

Paying rm25mil will lose power ke?

Posted by stncws > 22 minutes ago | Report Abuse

this guy will lose power very soon....

By failing to recognize the value of debate and dissent, such individuals demonstrate narrow-mindedness and an inability to grasp the complexities of a pluralistic society. Wisdom comes from understanding that diverse perspectives strengthen communities and foster collective growth. To oppose this ethos is to reject growth, stifle creativity, and promote conformity, ultimately doing more harm than good to society at large.

Those who cannot tolerate dissent often lack the emotional intelligence to handle opposing views. Rather than engaging in constructive dialogue, they impose rigid standards, suppressing individual freedom and diversity of thought. This behavior reflects an immature approach to governance and societal engagement, where control is prioritized over collaboration.

By rejecting open debate and diversity of thought, they contribute to a culture of suppression and intellectual stagnation. True wisdom lies in understanding that disagreement is not a threat, but a tool for refining ideas, policies, and beliefs. A mature society values dissent as an essential component of progress, allowing individuals to challenge established norms and inspire innovation.

It's citizens' rights to dissent. It is essential to defend the freedom to question and debate the imposition of cultural, moral, and religious diktats. When values and rules are forced upon a society without open discussion, it undermines individual autonomy and suppresses intellectual growth. Dissent is often misinterpreted as disrespect or rebellion, when in reality, it is a fundamental aspect of a vibrant democracy. Citizens must have the right to challenge policies that dictate how they should live, think, or behave, particularly when these policies impose narrow moral or religious standards that not everyone shares. Efforts to impose such mandates can be detrimental to a pluralistic society, where diverse beliefs and lifestyles coexist. Forcing a singular ethos onto the public not only stifles freedom of expression but also risks fostering resentment, division, and stagnation. By encouraging open dialogue, citizens are empowered to shape a society that reflects the true diversity of its people, rather than being coerced into conformity. Ultimately, the right to dissent is crucial for protecting individual liberties, maintaining a balanced discourse, and ensuring that policies align with the will and interests of the people, not just those in power.

Compulsory halal certification for small eateries in Malaysia could impose significant financial, operational, and cultural burdens. The costs of obtaining and maintaining certification, including application fees, regular inspections, and compliance with strict halal standards, may overwhelm small businesses, which often operate on tight margins. This could disrupt supply chains, increase operational costs, and reduce menu flexibility, especially for non-Muslim or niche eateries. Many small businesses thrive on traditional recipes or unique offerings, which may not comply with halal standards, leading to a loss of cultural diversity in Malaysia’s food scene. Furthermore, the requirement could create an uneven playing field, where large chains easily absorb these costs while small, independent businesses struggle. Non-Muslim business owners may feel alienated, and overregulation may stifle entrepreneurship and innovation. Forcing all eateries to comply with halal certification could also deepen social divisions and foster resentment between Muslim and non-Muslim communities. A more flexible, voluntary approach to halal certification would allow small businesses to thrive while still respecting Malaysia’s diverse cultural and religious landscape.

Holier than thou: Zaid Ibrahim’s argument is a sharp and necessary critique of the over-regulation of everyday Muslim life in Malaysia. The idea that, after decades of Islamic education, Muslims still need detailed guidance on where to eat or shop undermines their intelligence and independence. It also reflects a lack of faith in the very education system that was designed to equip Muslims with the knowledge to make such decisions. By pushing unnecessary guidelines, authorities are creating an over-controlled environment that stifles personal responsibility and growth. Muslims in Malaysia deserve the trust and respect to apply their faith independently, without the constant intervention of those who doubt their capacity to do so.

Freedom and Accountability

Encouraging Personal Accountability: A key aspect of faith is personal accountability. Muslims are taught that they are responsible for their actions and decisions. Zaid’s critique suggests that micromanaging where Muslims eat and shop strips them of the responsibility that is integral to religious practice. Instead of depending on guidelines, individuals should be held accountable for making their own informed choices based on their understanding of Islamic principles.

Balancing Faith and Modern Life: Zaid’s argument also implies that, in today’s modern, globalized world, Muslims are capable of balancing their faith with their daily lives without being spoon-fed guidelines. Muslims are navigating complex social, economic, and cultural environments, and they have the intelligence and religious understanding to make these decisions. Over-guidance limits their ability to integrate faith with their modern lifestyle.

Contradiction of Islamic Education’s Purpose

Islamic Education’s Goals: Islamic education is meant to provide Muslims with the knowledge and tools to live in accordance with their faith. Zaid’s critique brings to light a contradiction: if decades of education have not equipped Muslims to make basic decisions like where to eat or shop, then what was the purpose of that education? It would be absurd to believe that after all these years, Muslims are still incapable of applying what they’ve learned.

Devaluing Education: By continuously issuing new guidelines, religious authorities may be inadvertently devaluing Islamic education. Zaid’s argument underscores that the ultimate goal of religious education should be to empower individuals with enough knowledge to act independently. When new rules keep being introduced, it signals that Islamic education has failed to fulfill its purpose, which cannot be true given the substantial investments made in religious schooling in Malaysia.

Empowering Muslims Through Trust

Fostering Independent Thought: Part of growing in one’s faith is the ability to apply religious teachings to real-world situations independently. Zaid’s argument supports the idea that Muslims should be trusted to take ownership of their religious practices without needing constant external oversight. This approach encourages personal responsibility and critical thinking, empowering individuals to navigate their daily lives with confidence in their faith.

Avoiding Overprotection: Constantly offering guidance on what should be a personal decision creates a culture of overprotection. Zaid points out the flaw in treating Muslims as though they are perpetually in need of assistance. This infantilizing attitude stifles growth and maturity within the community. Instead, allowing Muslims to exercise their knowledge freely would foster a stronger sense of agency and religious understanding.

Overreach and Unnecessary Control

Unnecessary Bureaucracy: There is a bureaucratic overreach when religious bodies feel the need to regulate the everyday decisions of Muslims. Zaid is correct to imply that this level of control is unnecessary and reflects a low level of confidence in the ability of individual Muslims to exercise personal judgment. In a country like Malaysia, where Islamic principles are deeply ingrained in the fabric of society, there’s no reason to micromanage such personal choices.

Excessive Regulations: The idea that Muslims require guidelines on where to eat and shop reflects a deeper desire by some to regulate the faith in every aspect of life, even where it isn’t needed. This overregulation doesn’t just insult the intelligence of Muslims; it also risks creating resentment and eroding the sense of personal responsibility in practicing faith. Zaid’s critique highlights the need for trust in individual judgment, rather than a top-down imposition of rigid rules.

Undermining Intelligence and Autonomy

Intelligence and Religious Knowledge: Zaid highlights a fundamental issue: implying that Muslims cannot independently navigate decisions related to halal food or appropriate shopping venues suggests that the entire system of Islamic education has failed. After decades of formal and informal education on Islamic dietary laws, it’s reasonable to expect that most Muslims would have developed the necessary understanding to make informed decisions on their own. Constantly issuing new guidelines on where to eat or shop undermines this intellectual development.

Insulting the People’s Intelligence: By pushing these guidelines, authorities or organizations seem to be questioning the very intelligence of the Muslim community. Zaid rightly points out that those pushing for these rules must not have a high opinion of the people they are supposedly protecting. If Muslims have been educated extensively on the intricacies of halal, why would they still need such granular guidance? It’s almost as if they are being infantilized, treated as though they are unable to apply their knowledge without external intervention.