Reports have emerged of eateries displaying counterfeit halal certificates, misleading customers into believing that the food meets halal standards when it does not.

An too many pitfalls, biases and injustice. Inconsistent Monitoring: One of the main shortcomings is the inconsistency in the inspection process by authorities responsible for halal certification. Some eateries may obtain the certification but fail to maintain halal practices over time. Inspections are often not frequent enough to catch these lapses.

And immature societies often rely on patronage systems where loyalty to a specific group, tribe, or family supersedes qualifications. Leaders are chosen based on their ability to reward supporters with jobs, contracts, or resources rather than their capacity to govern effectively. This leads to a cycle of corruption, cronyism, and incompetence. In societies where critical thinking is underdeveloped, citizens may base their political decisions on superficial factors such as charisma, ethnicity, or religion rather than evaluating leaders on competence, policy, or integrity. This encourages the rise of leaders who focus on populism or emotional appeals rather than substantive governance. In immature societies, there may be little demand for transparency or accountability from leaders. Voters may tolerate or ignore mismanagement, corruption, or abuse of power because they lack political awareness or fear repercussions. This enables leaders to act irresponsibly, knowing they will not face significant consequences. In societies where patriarchal, hierarchical, or authoritarian norms dominate, leaders may emerge who perpetuate these same oppressive structures. Such leaders are not challenged to innovate or improve the system because the society itself does not demand equity or progress.

When society does not prioritize education, critical thinking, merit, and accountability, it begets leaders who reflect these shortcomings, perpetuating a cycle of immature governance. Societies that are highly polarized along ethnic, religious, or ideological lines often see the rise of leaders who exploit these divisions for political gain. Such leaders focus on consolidating power by appealing to narrow, sectarian interests rather than working toward the common good. This results in a fragmented society and weak governance. In a society that prioritizes immediate gratification over long-term planning, citizens may support leaders who promise quick fixes, even if these promises are unrealistic. Leaders who thrive in such environments focus on short-term gains, using rhetoric to exploit emotions instead of addressing the root causes of societal challenges.

Not based on come-back ppl telling- but from tradition, authority and revelation

For a mature person, particularly a Member of Parliament (MP), the primary responsibility is to represent the interests and concerns of all communities within their constituency, regardless of religious or cultural background. In this case, the MP is fulfilling her duty by asking the government to review a proposal that may impact various communities, a reasonable request in the pursuit of fairness and inclusivity. Her statement makes it clear that the review does not challenge the validity of halal certification, question Jakim’s role, or show any disrespect toward Islam. Instead, it is about ensuring that policies are inclusive and well-considered. However, an immature person may lack the ability to critically engage with such a statement. Instead of understanding the context and intent, they might feel offended, interpreting the remark as a personal or religious attack. Immaturity often manifests in emotional responses that overlook the substance of the message, causing individuals to react defensively rather than considering the broader implications or reasoning behind the statement. Thus, while the mature perspective seeks to ensure the well-being of all communities, the immature perspective may misconstrue the message as a provocation.

Cash is king culture still here to live- alive and kicking?

An obstacle to technological advancement.

And restricting of civil liberties,

It is far from being a force for good, promoting dogmatism, intolerance, bigotry and suffering, thus potentially poisons "everything" (many other business models)

It fosters immorality, including bigotry, discrimination, and abuse.

Allegations of corruption within JAKIM’s halal certification process have surfaced over the years. Claims of favoritism, bribery, and opaque processes have been made, which, if true, could lead to an unfair playing field for businesses, especially small ones. These under-the-table dealings could increase operational costs for businesses seeking certification and drive up the cost of food for consumers.

We must strive to put a full stop to such a dark system from the very begining. The strict criteria for halal certification affect not only food preparation but also the sourcing of raw materials. Businesses are required to use ingredients from halal-certified suppliers, limiting their options and increasing procurement costs. The scarcity of halal-certified suppliers in certain areas can further drive up the price of halal meals, as suppliers may charge a premium due to limited competition.

The rigid and overly cautious nature of JAKIM’s halal certification process may stifle innovation, particularly in industries that rely on fast-paced product development, such as food technology or pharmaceuticals. Entrepreneurs and investors may be deterred from developing innovative halal products or services due to fears of being bogged down in regulatory red tape. Malaysia risks missing out on becoming a leader in innovative halal markets, which are increasingly important in the global economy.

This stagnation in innovation can reduce the economy’s ability to diversify and grow, further shrinking the pie for all players. For example, Thailand’s emphasis on halal tourism, technology, and food production is becoming increasingly attractive to investors who seek lower barriers to entry.

Malaysia’s halal certification standards, though stringent, may not always align with international standards. This inconsistency can create complications for businesses that seek to export halal products globally, as they may need to obtain multiple certifications, each with different requirements. This increases operational complexity and costs, disincentivizing companies from operating in Malaysia, and causing them to look for alternative countries where international halal standards are more harmonized. The lack of alignment with global halal markets puts Malaysia at a competitive disadvantage.

At the expense of non-halal sectors? Malaysia’s heavy focus on promoting itself as a global halal hub, while beneficial in some ways, may divert attention and resources away from other sectors that have the potential for growth. For instance, non-halal industries, such as certain areas of technology, education, and tourism, may not receive the same level of support or investment, even though they could drive economic diversification and expansion. Neighboring countries with more balanced economic strategies can capitalize on these missed opportunities, leaving Malaysia behind.

At the expense of non-halal sectors? Malaysia’s heavy focus on promoting itself as a global halal hub, while beneficial in some ways, may divert attention and resources away from other sectors that have the potential for growth. For instance, non-halal industries, such as certain areas of technology, education, and tourism, may not receive the same level of support or investment, even though they could drive economic diversification and expansion. Neighboring countries with more balanced economic strategies can capitalize on these missed opportunities, leaving Malaysia behind.

At the expense of non-halal sectors? Malaysia’s heavy focus on promoting itself as a global halal hub, while beneficial in some ways, may divert attention and resources away from other sectors that have the potential for growth. For instance, non-halal industries, such as certain areas of technology, education, and tourism, may not receive the same level of support or investment, even though they could drive economic diversification and expansion. Neighboring countries with more balanced economic strategies can capitalize on these missed opportunities, leaving Malaysia behind.

At the expense of non-halal sectors? Malaysia’s heavy focus on promoting itself as a global halal hub, while beneficial in some ways, may divert attention and resources away from other sectors that have the potential for growth. For instance, non-halal industries, such as certain areas of technology, education, and tourism, may not receive the same level of support or investment, even though they could drive economic diversification and expansion. Neighboring countries with more balanced economic strategies can capitalize on these missed opportunities, leaving Malaysia behind.

At the expense of non-halal sectors? Malaysia’s heavy focus on promoting itself as a global halal hub, while beneficial in some ways, may divert attention and resources away from other sectors that have the potential for growth. For instance, non-halal industries, such as certain areas of technology, education, and tourism, may not receive the same level of support or investment, even though they could drive economic diversification and expansion. Neighboring countries with more balanced economic strategies can capitalize on these missed opportunities, leaving Malaysia behind.

JAKIM’s halal certification process, while important for maintaining religious standards, has the potential to shrink the economic pie for all stakeholders in Malaysia. Its bureaucratic complexity, high costs, and monopolistic tendencies can stifle local businesses, drive away investors, and weaken Malaysia’s competitiveness compared to neighboring countries, which are becoming more attractive destinations for investment. The cumulative impact can be seen as a form of economic self-sabotage, limiting growth and prosperity for the nation.

For a mature person, particularly a Member of Parliament (MP), the primary responsibility is to represent the interests and concerns of all communities within their constituency, regardless of religious or cultural background. In this case, the MP is fulfilling her duty by asking the government to review a proposal that may impact various communities, a reasonable request in the pursuit of fairness and inclusivity. Her statement makes it clear that the review does not challenge the validity of halal certification, question Jakim’s role, or show any disrespect toward Islam. Instead, it is about ensuring that policies are inclusive and well-considered.

However, an immature person may lack the ability to critically engage with such a statement. Instead of understanding the context and intent, they might feel offended, interpreting the remark as a personal or religious attack. Immaturity often manifests in emotional responses that overlook the substance of the message, causing individuals to react defensively rather than considering the broader implications or reasoning behind the statement. Thus, while the mature perspective seeks to ensure the well-being of all communities, the immature perspective may misconstrue the message as a provocation.

For a mature person, particularly a Member of Parliament (MP), the primary responsibility is to represent the interests and concerns of all communities within their constituency, regardless of religious or cultural background. In this case, the MP is fulfilling her duty by asking the government to review a proposal that may impact various communities, a reasonable request in the pursuit of fairness and inclusivity. Her statement makes it clear that the review does not challenge the validity of halal certification, question Jakim’s role, or show any disrespect toward Islam. Instead, it is about ensuring that policies are inclusive and well-considered.

However, an immature person may lack the ability to critically engage with such a statement. Instead of understanding the context and intent, they might feel offended, interpreting the remark as a personal or religious attack. Immaturity often manifests in emotional responses that overlook the substance of the message, causing individuals to react defensively rather than considering the broader implications or reasoning behind the statement. Thus, while the mature perspective seeks to ensure the well-being of all communities, the immature perspective may misconstrue the message as a provocation.

In many societies, there's a powerful pressure to conform to the majority opinion, especially in rural or close-knit kampung communities where dissent is seen as betrayal. The "herd mentality" leads individuals to vote as a collective, even if it means voting against their own personal freedoms and economic well-being. The fear of social ostracism can be a stronger motivator than the desire for individual liberation or prosperity.

History has shown that many voters develop a kind of political "Stockholm Syndrome," where they develop an irrational loyalty to their oppressors, believing that the government's actions, no matter how constrictive, are ultimately for their own good. This deep emotional attachment can be hard to break, as it involves not just political beliefs but also personal identity. People who have aligned themselves with a political party for decades may find it psychologically difficult to admit that the party has betrayed their interests.

Owing to low standard of education, many common voters lack access to comprehensive political education or may be overwhelmed by misinformation, making it difficult to critically assess political platforms. When a government controls media narratives or educational curriculums, it can shape public perception in ways that obscure the true impact of its policies. The public may not fully understand how their freedoms are being constricted or how the economy is being manipulated through layers of fees and charges because they are not given the tools or information to make informed choices.

The existence of "little Napoleons" or middlemen or unnecessary agencies who extract fees and impose additional burdens on everyday life is often tolerated because such systems become deeply embedded in the structure of governance. Voters may feel powerless to challenge the bureaucratic systems that siphon off wealth through corruption or inefficiency because these systems are portrayed as part of the natural order of governance. The layers of bureaucracy act as gatekeepers to services, creating a dependency cycle where people must comply with these systems to survive, even if they recognize the exploitation.

In many cases, voters may be influenced by short-term incentives offered by political parties, such as subsidies, cash handouts, or job guarantees, which temporarily alleviate financial stress. While these measures may not address the underlying issues of economic disparity or escalating costs of living, they create a sense of immediate relief that can translate into electoral support. This "vote buying" practice, whether direct or indirect, is common in many backward-pedalling countries.

Governments often manipulate voters through fear-mongering, framing opposition parties or alternative systems as chaotic, dangerous, or morally bankrupt. This kind of fear-based politics can lead people to vote against their own interests simply because they are convinced that any change will be worse than their current situation. The use of divisive rhetoric—pitting one group against another—can further polarize society, making people cling to their political tribes rather than question the policies being implemented.

The recurring pattern of voters electing governments that restrict freedoms and increase costs of living can be attributed to a complex interplay of psychological conditioning, manipulation, economic dependence, and cultural factors. Breaking free from this cycle requires political education, awareness of manipulation tactics

If Teresa Kok wins the case, she could be awarded damages. However, the amount would depend on the severity of the impact on her reputation and the level of public exposure of the statement.

The courts would consider whether the statement damaged her reputation

In Malaysia, defamation is covered under the Defamation Act 1957. Defamation occurs when a statement made by one person causes harm to another's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person.
To prove defamation, Teresa Kok would need to demonstrate that:
The statement was published (made public, whether verbally or in writing).
The statement referred to her.
The statement caused damage to her reputation.
The statement was not true or could not be justified as a fair comment.

Extremely rude and unbecoming of him to name calling her nyonya Tua. Can she sue him for a million dollar for this?

Very unislamic of compounding like that?

But who can do good maths among national schools leavers, right? And, after all, gomen - unless in a truly democratically secular country - is the everybody got it in to install more advanced and costlier AWas cam to summon road tax payers instead of installing more CCTV for security in every town and city

Still - the current structure of halal certification may seem like a regulatory overreach that benefits large corporations with the means to absorb certification costs, while sidelining smaller businesses and imposing unnecessary burdens on the economy.

What do Peter Pan brained people like you know about country affair? Go back to your lactating m*there

Posted by FelixFamilyHumKLeng > 22 minutes ago | Report Abuse

@EngineeringProfit....don,t try to impress you are a RENAISSANCE MAN..you do not even know that your wife told the person Vincent8864 that his LAN*CHIO is harder than yours when ERRECTED during SIO KAN session when you did wife swapping with Vincent8864.

Pope and Grand Imam in Jakarta, condemned the exploitation of religion to initiate conflicts (kk socks or vernshoes), justify violence & vigilantism, perpetuate in-group vs outgroup discrimination, depleting public fund as well as ballooning up country debtt, emphasizing its true role in promoting human dignity, peace, and unity across the globe.

That's ok (in fact, rampant) during ancient egyptian era- long before AI. Now is not viable. People-less office/department is the way forward.

The redundancy of Jakimm lies in the fact that its functions overlap with state religious bodies, its centralized approach to religious governance is seen as inefficient, and its political role could be detrimental to societal harmony. Redirecting its resources to more pressing needs, while empowering state bodies and communities, would be a more practical and inclusive path.

Mandatory halal certification introduces additional administrative and financial burdens, especially for small businesses. These include costs associated with compliance, auditing, and documentation, which can strain resources and reduce competitiveness, particularly for businesses that do not primarily cater to Muslim consumers. By enforcing certification, the government may inadvertently limit the flexibility and autonomy that businesses need to operate efficiently in a diverse market.

In contrast, a voluntary halal certification system would allow businesses to respond to market demand organically. Those that see value in obtaining halal certification—due to consumer preferences or market positioning—can do so without being forced. This market-driven approach encourages healthy competition and innovation, while avoiding the imposition of unnecessary costs on businesses that may not benefit from certification.

Forcing compliance could also create operational inefficiencies, leading to higher prices for consumers and reducing the overall agility of businesses in adapting to changing market conditions. Thus, voluntary certification strikes a balance, supporting both the needs of relevant consumers and the sustainability of diverse business operations.

The Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 was amended in 2019, with several key changes to improve the right to peaceful assembly. Some of the notable amendments include:

Shorter Notice Period: The original 10-day notice period was reduced to 5 days. This amendment aimed to make it easier for organizers to hold public gatherings without facing unnecessary delays.

No Requirement for Children’s Participation Restrictions: Previously, children (those under 15 years old) were not allowed to participate in peaceful assemblies. The 2019 amendments removed this restriction, allowing children to join peaceful assemblies, which was seen as a move to encourage greater civic participation.

Public Gathering Spaces: The amendments also introduced more flexible provisions regarding where peaceful assemblies can be held. This made it easier to hold assemblies in urban spaces without facing harsh restrictions from local authorities.

These changes were made to align with international human rights standards and improve the legal framework for public gatherings.

The failure to give the 24-year-old school bus driver in Johor the benefit of the doubt not only jeopardized his immediate reputation and self-esteem but could also lead to far-reaching, irreparable damage to his future. By hastily acting against him without fully considering his possible ignorance of newly implemented social media laws, authorities and society may have condemned him unfairly. His actions—posting TikTok videos featuring children’s faces—could very well have been driven by innocent motivations such as boredom, a desire to be different, or simply an attempt at creativity. Rather than malicious intent, this act may reflect a lack of awareness of legal nuances regarding privacy, which can be challenging to keep up with, especially for young individuals navigating a fast-evolving digital landscape.

Should this incident result in the driver being fired, he could face severe consequences beyond immediate job loss. In a society where reputation is critical for employment, the stigma attached to his mistake may render him unemployable, significantly limiting his future opportunities. The label of “irresponsible” or “dangerous” could follow him into other job applications, making it nearly impossible to rebuild his life. As a result, this young individual might find himself ostracized, with his career prospects shattered over a misunderstanding.

Moreover, the psychological impact of such public condemnation could be devastating. Being thrust into the limelight for what may have been an innocent mistake could severely harm his mental well-being, leading to feelings of worthlessness, frustration, and anger. If society and the justice system fail to offer empathy or a chance for redemption, this could fuel resentment and feelings of injustice. In some cases, individuals who face such harsh consequences may become disillusioned, potentially turning to anti-social or even criminal behavior as a form of retaliation against a society they feel has wronged them.

The failure to provide him with the benefit of the doubt could, therefore, have long-term repercussions not only on his life but on society at large. Instead of offering education or rehabilitation, the punitive response may drive him into a corner where he feels abandoned and unable to reintegrate. This could foster deep-seated grudges, which, in extreme cases, may lead to criminal behavior as a form of revenge against those perceived to have destroyed his life.

In a world where social media laws are continuously changing and public opinion can be merciless, it is essential to consider context, intent, and the possibility of ignorance. A more balanced approach—one that allows for education and correction—would serve both the individual and society better than outright condemnation and exclusion. This would help prevent the risk of transforming a minor mistake into a life-altering catastrophe.

The case of the 24-year-old school bus driver in Johor, who faced swift backlash for posting TikTok videos featuring children’s faces, presents a sharp contrast to the handling of high profile crime cases like the assault of a weaponless farmer or deaf Grab driver. The bus driver's actions, while irresponsible, were not of a violent nature, yet his life quickly spiraled due to public outcry and potential legal consequences. His use of social media to share content involving minors without consent drew intense criticism, likely leading to swift repercussions including job loss and legal scrutiny, highlighting the rapid consequences of such actions in the digital age. In stark contrast, the case of the high profile assault cases in Pahang (involving a farmer) and Klang valley (involving an OKU grab driver) has seen a much slower process, with little accountability or justice meted out even months later. This incident, involving a clear act of physical violence, has not resulted in any visible legal consequences for the royal offender, reflecting the disparity in how justice is applied. While the school bus driver faced immediate fallout for a non-violent act, the royal crime involving assault has yet to see meaningful resolution, showing a troubling imbalance in how laws are enforced based on social status. This comparison underscores the broader issue of selective justice, where minor offenses by ordinary citizens lead to severe and immediate penalties, while more serious crimes by influential figures can go unpunished for extended periods. It raises questions about equality before the law and the role of privilege in determining the speed and severity of legal consequences.

Pope and Grand Imam in Jakarta, condemned the exploitation of religion to initiate conflicts (kk socks or vernshoes), justify violence & vigilantism, perpetuate in-group vs outgroup discrimination, depleting public fund as well as ballooning up country debtt, emphasizing its true role in promoting human dignity, peace, and unity across the globe.

Promoting sense and sensibility among school learners in a pluralistic society is far more important and unifying than emphasizing religion. In a diverse society, students come from various cultural, religious, and ethnic backgrounds, each with its own belief systems. Focusing on religion in schools risks deepening divisions and fostering a sense of "otherness" among students of different faiths. Instead, nurturing critical thinking, empathy, and respect for differences can create a shared framework for unity and cooperation. Teaching sense and sensibility encourages students to approach problems with logic, fairness, and open-mindedness. These skills are essential for resolving conflicts, understanding diverse perspectives, and fostering peaceful coexistence. In contrast, religious instruction can sometimes entrench dogmatic thinking and exclude those who don't share the same beliefs, leading to discrimination or intolerance. Furthermore, promoting emotional intelligence and social responsibility helps learners navigate the complexities of modern, multicultural societies. It fosters values like compassion, respect, and justice, which transcend religious boundaries and are universal to humanity. By cultivating these qualities, schools can prepare students to contribute meaningfully to society, ensuring that they value human dignity and equality above sectarian divisions. This approach creates a stronger, more cohesive society rooted in mutual respect and shared values, rather than one fragmented by religious differences.

Promoting sense and sensibility among school learners in a pluralistic society is far more important and unifying than emphasizing religion. In a diverse society, students come from various cultural, religious, and ethnic backgrounds, each with its own belief systems. Focusing on religion in schools risks deepening divisions and fostering a sense of "otherness" among students of different faiths. Instead, nurturing critical thinking, empathy, and respect for differences can create a shared framework for unity and cooperation.

Teaching sense and sensibility encourages students to approach problems with logic, fairness, and open-mindedness. These skills are essential for resolving conflicts, understanding diverse perspectives, and fostering peaceful coexistence. In contrast, religious instruction can sometimes entrench dogmatic thinking and exclude those who don't share the same beliefs, leading to discrimination or intolerance.

Furthermore, promoting emotional intelligence and social responsibility helps learners navigate the complexities of modern, multicultural societies. It fosters values like compassion, respect, and justice, which transcend religious boundaries and are universal to humanity. By cultivating these qualities, schools can prepare students to contribute meaningfully to society, ensuring that they value human dignity and equality above sectarian divisions. This approach creates a stronger, more cohesive society rooted in mutual respect and shared values, rather than one fragmented by religious differences.

Pope and Grand Imam in Jakarta, condemned the exploitation of religion to initiate conflicts (kk socks or vernshoes), justify violence & vigilantism as well as perpetuate in-group vs outgroup discrimination, emphasizing its true role in promoting human dignity, peace, and unity across the globe.

Recent events reflect a troubling contrast in how justice is served. On one end, we witnessed a tragic sinkhole accident involving an Indian woman who, despite rescue efforts, met a heartbreaking end. In other news, our badminton players performed well in Korea, while one faced swift punishment for mistreating his dog. Diplomatically, New Zealand’s Prime Minister visited, and our leader traveled to Russia, while Pope Francis was warmly received in Indonesia.

However, what stands out is the selective justice surrounding certain incidents. A royal security officer assaulted a Grab driver, and in a separate case, a road construction worker was brutally beaten, stabbed, and shot. Yet, months later, no charges have been filed in either case. These seemingly minor offenses have been allowed to linger, with no resolution in sight.

The real tragedy lies in the selective treatment and inaction by key figures like the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, and the Inspector-General of Police, who are allowing such cases to tarnish the nation’s image. Despite the high-profile nature of these incidents, they are petty crimes that should have been swiftly concluded. This failure to address the issue swiftly and fairly erodes public trust and brings shame to the nation.

The assault on Ong Ing Keong is a deeply troubling and reprehensible act that demands unequivocal condemnation. Such violent behavior is not only a gross violation of an individual’s basic rights but also an affront to the values of respect, dignity, and justice that should underpin any society.

Violence, in any form, has no place in civil discourse or in addressing disagreements. It erodes the social fabric, undermines the rule of law, and instills fear within communities. The assault on Ong Ing Keong is a stark reminder of the dangers posed by those who resort to physical harm as a means of resolving conflicts or asserting power.

It is crucial that the perpetrators of this heinous act are brought to justice swiftly and that they face the full consequences of their actions. Moreover, this incident should serve as a catalyst for broader discussions on the need to foster a culture of non-violence, mutual respect, and dialogue in our society. We must collectively work to ensure that such acts of violence are not tolerated and that everyone can live without fear of assault or intimidation.