ShutterNut... posted a photo:

Please be aware... ALL Photos are purely for entertainment. I am no expert. Titles are from recognition - what I was told - or a quick search. Polite comments or corrections are welcome.

MAY 4 — Malaysia has just launched a new 10-year national education blueprint 2026-2035. Many have lauded the ambitious nature of the plan. Equally, many have warned about the many challenges of implementation. Malaysia’s ambition to become a global education hub is both laudable and logical. With a strong multilingual base, strategic location, and decades of investment in campus infrastructure, the foundation is solid. 

The visible presence of Malaysian universities in international rankings, driven by a concerted push for publications, proves the strategy has momentum. However, in today’s hyper-competitive arena, where rankings increasingly value the impact and relevance of research, a simple “publish or perish” treadmill is no longer enough. To rise decisively, Malaysian universities must strategically pivot from quantity to quality, and from visibility to genuine global influence.

The first, and most critical, shift must be in the culture of publication itself. The current incentive system at many institutions often rewards quantity and journal prestige points (e.g., Q1 journals) above all else. This has yielded growth, but risks creating a factory-like output of incremental studies with limited resonance. The new strategy must incentivise research ambition and rigour. 

This means providing protected time, seed funding for high-risk/high-reward ideas, and celebrating papers not just for where they are published, but for their citation impact, policy influence, or public engagement. Universities should actively foster interdisciplinary research clusters — mixing engineers with economists, medical researchers with data scientists — to solve complex problems. This is where groundbreaking science often happens.

The author argues that Malaysia’s new 10-year education blueprint can strengthen the country’s ambition to become a global education hub only if universities shift from prioritising publication quantity to research quality, SDG-driven relevance, meaningful international collaboration, and stronger support systems for academics and innovation. — Wikimedia pic

This leads directly to the second pillar: authentically embedding the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into the research DNA. SDG alignment is not a branding exercise; it is a powerful framework for relevance. Malaysian universities are uniquely positioned to lead on SDG research that speaks to both local and global challenges. Think of pioneering work on sustainable palm oil alternatives, climate-resilient urban planning for tropical megacities, equitable healthcare models for ageing societies, or biodiversity conservation in Asean rainforests. 

This requires moving beyond tagging existing projects with SDG keywords. It demands strategic hiring, creating SDG-focused research institutes, and aligning postgraduate programmes to train the problem-solvers of tomorrow. Research on local issues with global parallels will attract international scholarly attention and partnerships organically.

Speaking of partnerships, the third pillar requires transforming international collaboration from a transactional metric to a transformational engine. The goal should not be to simply add foreign co-authors to papers. The strategy must be to build deep, equitable consortiums around shared challenges. Malaysian universities should position themselves as indispensable hubs for research in the Global South and on tropical themes. 

Pursue joint PhD programmes, co-supervision networks, and shared laboratory access with top universities worldwide. Crucially, they must also become better at telling the story of their research. A powerful publication in a specialist journal is just the start. Investing in science communication, policy briefs, and media engagement to translate findings for public and government consumption amplifies impact — a factor rankings are increasingly attuned to.

Furthermore, universities must empower their greatest asset: their academics. The academics must be suitably empowered to bring change. This means reducing excessive administrative burdens, streamlining ethics approval processes, and providing robust grant-writing support. Simultaneously, they must be ruthless in upgrading critical infrastructure — not just labs, but high-speed computational resources and open-access publishing funds. Most important is the art of people management, especially how to effectively motivate them. 

The race up the ranking ladder is not won by playing a short-term game. It is won by building a vibrant, confident, and impactful research ecosystem. For Malaysia, the opportunity is not merely to appear in the rankings, but to redefine what excellence from a non-Western hub looks like: excellence that is scientifically rigorous, globally connected, and passionately relevant to humanity’s pressing needs. The rankings are a symptom of health, not the cause. 

By strategically focusing on quality, SDG-led relevance, and deep partnerships, Malaysian universities will not just climb the ladder — they will help build a new one. If universities can embrace such path, that would effectively silenced the growing critics of the ranking investment.

* Professor Datuk Ahmad Ibrahim is affiliated with the Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy Studies at UCSI University and is an Adjunct Professor at the Ungku Aziz Centre for Development Studies, Universiti Malaya. He can be reached at ahmadibrahim@ucsiuniversity.edu.my 

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

MAY 4 — There was a time when the rising sun of Japan was the guiding light for Malaysia’s economic ambitions. The “Look East Policy,” inaugurated by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in the early 1980s, was more than just a diplomatic slogan; it was a national ethos. It painted Japan not just as a trading partner, but as a civilisational model — a testament to what an Asian nation could achieve through discipline, hard work, and a unique brand of corporate capitalism.

Today, however, the landscape tells a different story. The billboards that once championed Sony and Mitsubishi now glow with the branding of Huawei, BYD, and Samsung. China has unquestionably become Malaysia’s dominant economic partner. The question is why this tectonic shift has occurred, and whether the Land of the Rising Sun can ever reclaim its former glory.

To understand Japan’s diminished role, one must first look at the stagnation of its own economy. The “Lost Decades” following the asset bubble burst in the early 1990s transformed Japan from a aggressive global investor into a cautious, risk-averse player. Japanese corporations, once eager to build sprawling manufacturing complexes in places like Shah Alam and Johor, became conservative. Their model, based on lifetime employment and consensus-based decision-making, was ill-suited for the breakneck speed of the digital age and the hyper-competitive landscape of the 21st century world.

While Japan was looking inward, China was aggressively looking outward. The 2010s saw Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) pour billions into Malaysian infrastructure. The pace was dizzying. Where a Japanese feasibility study might take three years, a Chinese state-owned enterprise could break ground in three months. This speed, coupled with a willingness to invest in massive, visible projects like the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL), captured the Malaysian imagination and filled a vacuum that Japanese caution had created.

The author argues that Japan’s influence in Malaysia has waned due to decades of economic stagnation and China’s rapid rise as a dominant regional investor, but that Tokyo can still regain relevance by focusing on high-tech collaboration, innovation partnerships, and a renewed form of cultural diplomacy suited to the demands of the 21st century. — Unsplash pic

The simple truth is that the “special relationship” with Japan was sustained by strong personal rapport at the top. As Dr Mahathir’s direct influence waned and a new generation of Malaysian leaders and consumers came of age, they felt no such nostalgia. They witnessed Japan’s slow-motion retreat from the region and simply looked elsewhere for the economic dynamism they craved.

Regaining its place will not be easy. The world has moved on, and a return to the 1980s is impossible. However, Japan’s decline is not irreversible. To reclaim its relevance, Tokyo must fundamentally change its strategy, moving from a model of general manufacturing to one of high-tech, high-value specialisation.

First, Japan must pivot from competing on volume to leading in niche excellence. While China dominates mass-market EV production, Japan holds the keys to the future of mobility: advanced batteries, lightweight materials, and the complex supply chain for the semiconductors that will power the next generation of smart cars. Instead of trying to sell the most cars, Japanese giants like Toyota and Panasonic should position themselves as the indispensable technological partners for Malaysia’s own automotive ambitions, particularly in the EV sector.

Second, Japan needs to rediscover its innovative edge through genuine collaboration. The old model was Japan teaching, and Malaysia learning. That era is over. The new model must be one of co-creation. Japan is a global leader in robotics, IoT, and green technology. Malaysia, with its industrial base and digital aspirations, is the perfect testbed for these innovations. Instead of just building factories, Japanese firms should establish joint R&D centres with Malaysian universities and startups to solve local problems — from smart agriculture in Sabah to flood mitigation technology in Kuala Lumpur.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, Japan must engage in a new form of cultural diplomacy. The “Look East” policy needs a 2.0 version. This isn’t about asking Malaysians to bow more deeply or work longer hours. It is about showcasing Japan’s soft power in the 21st century. This means leveraging its global dominance in anime, gaming, and design to build bridges with Malaysian youth. It means promoting tourism not just for shopping, but for educational exchanges in tech and the arts. It means making Japan seem fun, accessible, and futuristic again.

The narrative that Japan has permanently lost its place in Malaysia is not yet a foregone conclusion. Its economic footprint may have shrunk, but its reputation for quality, precision, and reliability remains intact. If Japan can leverage these assets with the urgency and adaptability of a challenger, rather than the complacency of an established power, it can carve out a new and vital role. The sun may have faded, but it has not yet set. Whether it rises again depends entirely on whether Japan is willing to look east once more — and see a partner, not just a pupil.  

* Professor Datuk Ahmad Ibrahim is affiliated with the Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy Studies at UCSI University and is an Adjunct Professor at the Ungku Aziz Centre for Development Studies, Universiti Malaya. He can be reached at ahmadibrahim@ucsiuniversity.edu.my 

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

MAY 4 — We, the undersigned, congratulate the Government for responding positively to the proposal to separate the offices of the Attorney General and the Public Prosecutor. However, we are deeply concerned that the Government’s current proposal under the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2026 (the Bill) lacks any parliamentary check and balance for what is one of the most significant appointments in Malaysia’s constitutional order.

We wish to express our firm support for the inclusion of parliamentary committee scrutiny over the appointment process of the Public Prosecutor (PP).

The Public Prosecutor’s role requires robust institutional safeguards

The PP holds extraordinary powers, including the sole authority to initiate, conduct, and discontinue criminal prosecutions. Given the scope of this power, and the glaring past evidence of its politicisation, the manner in which the PP is appointed must itself be transparent, merit-based, and shielded from undue influence.

The current Bill proposes to vest the YDPA with discretionary power to appoint the PP on the recommendation of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) and after consulting the Conference of Rulers. It is noteworthy that the JLSC is part of the public services. While we welcome the principle of separation between the roles of Attorney General and Public Prosecutor, the proposed appointment framework risks placing the process entirely beyond meaningful public or parliamentary oversight.

The authors argue that parliamentary scrutiny of the Public Prosecutor’s appointment is constitutionally valid and necessary to strengthen transparency, accountability, and institutional independence within Malaysia’s system of checks and balances. ― Picture by Shafwan Zaidon

The Constitution permits and supports parliamentary scrutiny

It is our considered position that a constitutional amendment to include parliamentary scrutiny in the appointment of the PP is entirely permissible under the Federal Constitution. Contrary to suggestions that any such involvement would be unconstitutional on the ground of violation of separation of powers, we view that in our Westminster system of responsible government, the Constitution expressly contemplates scrutiny by external institutions, including Parliament, of executive decision-making. Key constitutional provisions support this conclusion:

• Article 39 preserves Parliament’s authority to confer executive functions on other persons by law.
• Articles 40(1) and 40(2) together expressly envision that entities beyond the Cabinet can be authorised to provide binding advice to the YDPA.
• The YDPA’s discretion to appoint a PM under Article 43(2) is subject to the supreme requirement that the PM-to-be must belong to the Dewan Rakyat and must, in the YDPA’s judgement, be “likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that house”.
• Article 40(3) provides that federal law may require the YDPA to act after consultation with or on the recommendation of any person or body of persons.
• Article 3(5) permits Parliament to constitute a Council to advise the YDPA in matters relating to Islam.
• In relation to the YDPA’s power to appoint an Election Commission, Article 114(2) enjoins that the YDPA shall have regard to the importance of “securing an Election Commission which enjoys public confidence”.
• The YDPA’s momentous power to proclaim an emergency under Article 150(1) is subject to parliamentary control. Under Article 150(3), a Proclamation must be laid before both Houses and may be annulled by a Resolution of both Houses passed by a simple majority.

These provisions demonstrate that the Constitution does not mandate a closed or exclusively executive decision-making process, including the appointment process for high public office.

Reliance on Semenyih Jaya to block parliamentary scrutiny Is misconceived

Some have argued that parliamentary involvement in the appointment of the Public Prosecutor would be unconstitutional, relying principally on the Federal Court’s decision in Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat [2017] 3 MLJ 561. This argument fundamentally misreads that judgment.

In Semenyih Jaya, the Federal Court struck down statutory provisions that transferred judicial decision-making power to lay assessors, holding that judicial power under Article 121 of the Federal Constitution is vested exclusively and inalienably in the courts. The Court affirmed that the independence of the judiciary forms part of the Constitution’s basic structure and cannot be diluted or reassigned by ordinary legislation.

However, the legal reasoning of Semenyih Jaya is confined strictly to judicial power and the protection of judicial independence. It concerns the relationship between the judiciary and Parliament — it says nothing about executive appointments or the relationship between the Executive and Parliament which is one of conjunction and not strict separation. To invoke Semenyih Jaya as a general constitutional prohibition against Parliament playing any role in appointments to high public office is to distort its legal reasoning beyond recognition. The case does not establish — and the Federal Court did not hold — that Parliament’s role is limited to passing laws or that Parliament’s oversight functions do not extend to scrutiny of public appointments by the Executive.

Indeed, Semenyih Jaya itself reaffirmed that the Constitution embodies substantive principles, including the rule of law, separation of powers, check and balance and democratic accountability, which must be given generous and purposive effect. As stated in the subsequent Federal Court decision of Alma Nudo Atenza v PP & Anor Appeal [2019] 5 CLJ 780 at paras. 70-71, at the core of the doctrine of separation of powers is the need for a check and balance mechanism to avoid the risk of abuse of power. The Executive, Parliament and the Judiciary form a mutual check upon each other by regulating and being regulated by the rest.

These are precisely the principles that support, rather than undermine, the case for parliamentary scrutiny over the appointment of the Public Prosecutor. A correct and complete reading of Semenyih Jaya reinforces, not diminishes, the case for meaningful oversight of this appointment.

A check and balance mechanism is a constitutional imperative

Malaysia’s Constitution adopts a Westminster parliamentary model under a constitutional monarchy, characterised by some elements of fusion of the Executive and Parliament in terms of both composition and powers. It is precisely these elements of fusion that render Parliament’s check-and-balance role and oversight powers over the Executive as essential, a fact that is recognised in the Constitution through provisions such as Article 43(3) that requires Cabinet to be collectively responsible to Parliament.

It should be noted that the Bill does not move the power of appointing the PP away from the Executive — it merely moves the power from the Prime Minister to other sections of the Executive and public service, namely the YDPA and JLSC. Parliamentary scrutiny over the PP appointment is, therefore, not a deviation from our constitutional model but a vital requirement to preserve check and balance over the exercise of this new power.

Without check and balance mechanisms, the Government’s proposal risks placing the appointment of the PP outside both parliamentary and judicial oversight, a situation that may itself be contrary to the basic structure of the Constitution. Democratic accountability, the rule of law, and the separation of powers are foundational constitutional values that must be actively safeguarded, not silently surrendered.

We are not calling for Parliament to appoint the Public Prosecutor

Our constitutional solution is scrutiny without substitution. We are calling for MPs as representatives of the public interest who are directly accountable to the public, to play a meaningful scrutiny role in the appointment process as is done in countries such as Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Kenya, Chile and others, to ensure transparency and compliance with qualification and procedural standards, to distribute accountability across institutions, and to materially reduce the risk of undue influence over the person who will occupy one of the most powerful offices in the Federation.

Our call to Parliament

We call on Members of Parliament, across party lines, to:

• Reject any framing that parliamentary scrutiny in the PP appointment process is unconstitutional — the constitutional and legal basis for such involvement is clear;
• Amend the Bill to include a structured parliamentary scrutiny mechanism as part of the
• appointment process for the Public Prosecutor;
• Ensure that any final model adopted upholds the values of transparency, accountability, and institutional independence; and
• Recognise that insulating the PP appointment from all oversight does not strengthen prosecutorial independence — it undermines it.
• The separation of the Attorney General and the Public Prosecutor represents a historic constitutional moment for Malaysia. We must seize this moment to build institutions that are genuinely independent, truly accountable, and worthy of public trust. A transparent, multi-layered appointment process with parliamentary scrutiny is not a threat to that goal — it is an integral step towards achieving it.

Initiators

Ngeow Chow Ying (Advocate & Solicitor, Convener, Projek SAMA)

Maha Balakrishnan (Parliamentary & Policy Advocacy Specialist)

Endorsements

1. Tan Sri Mohamad Ariff Bin Md Yusof (former Judge of the Court of Appeal and former Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat)

2. Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Bin Md Yunus (former Judge of the Court of Appeal)

3. Emeritus Prof. Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi (former holder of the Tunku Abdul Rahman Chair at UM)

4. Datuk Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari (Advocate & Solicitor, past president of the Malaysian Bar (2003-2005))

5. Datuk Yeoh Yang Poh (Advocate & Solicitor, past president of the Malaysian Bar (2005-2007))

6. Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan (Advocate & Solicitor, past president of the Malaysian Bar (2007-2009))

7. Ragunath Kesavan (Advocate & Solicitor, past president of the Malaysian Bar (2009-2011))

8. Christopher Leong (Advocate & Solicitor, past president of the Malaysian Bar (2013-2015))

9. Salim Bashir (Advocate & Solicitor, past president of the Malaysian Bar (2020-2021))

10. Datuk Gurdial Singh Nijar (former professor, Advocate & Solicitor)

11. Datuk Seri M.Ramachelvam (Advocate & Solicitor, president HAKAM)

12. Professor Andrew J Harding (legal scholar)

13. Abdul Rashid Ismail (Advocate & Solicitor)

14. Shanmuga Kanesalingam (Advocate & Solicitor)

15. Fahri Azzat (Advocate & Solicitor)

16. Prof Wong Chin Huat (political scientist, Sunway University)

17. Prof Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid (Honorary Professor, School of Distance Education, Universiti Sains Malaysia)

18. Assoc Prof Azmil Mohd Tayeb (political scientist, Universiti Sains Malaysia)

19. Assoc Prof Syaza Shukri (Department of Political Science and Madani Studies, IIUM)

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.

chris murkin posted a photo:

VH-NAW North American T-28B Trojan US Navy BuNo 138278 8278
Photo Taken at Warbirds over Scone NSW Australia March 2026
HAF_5647

baffalie posted a photo:

NSU Muséum-
Urbanstraße 9-11, 74172 Neckarsulm, Allemagne
Edition 02/2025.

baffalie posted a photo:

NSU Muséum-
Urbanstraße 9-11, 74172 Neckarsulm, Allemagne
Edition 02/2025.

baffalie posted a photo:

NSU Muséum-
Urbanstraße 9-11, 74172 Neckarsulm, Allemagne
Edition 02/2025.

baffalie posted a photo:

NSU Muséum-
Urbanstraße 9-11, 74172 Neckarsulm, Allemagne
Edition 02/2025.

ShutterNut... posted a photo:

Please be aware... ALL Photos are purely for entertainment. I am no expert. Titles are from recognition - what I was told - or a quick search. Polite comments or corrections are welcome.

ShutterNut... posted a photo:

Please be aware... ALL Photos are purely for entertainment. I am no expert. Titles are from recognition - what I was told - or a quick search. Polite comments or corrections are welcome.

baffalie posted a photo:

Urbanstraße 9-11, 74172 Neckarsulm, Allemagne
Edition 02/2025.