Featured

HR Strategies in Navigating Geopolitical Crisis Uncertainty

2026-03-10T15:51:19+08:00

Article By :

Associate Prof. Dr. Jakaria Dasan,

Faculty of Business, Economics, and Accountancy

Organizations in Malaysia are currently facing a time bomb that is rarely discussed openly or seriously before it detonates. This time bomb is what we refer to the erosion of employee focus due to economic pressure stemming from the conflict between Iran and the Israel-United States alliance.

Although separated by thousands of kilometres, the ripples from this conflict in the Middle East are a real threat capable of paralyzing supply chains and skyrocketing operating costs in the blink of an eye.

For those of us directly involved in Human Resource (HR) management, the big question is not whether we can stop the conflict, but whether we are prepared to manage the emotional burden and mental fatigue that this economic impact inflicts upon our human capital.

Workforce productivity does not erode drastically overnight. It declines slowly due to employee anxieties over the stability of the cost of living, supply chain disruptions that hinder operations, and a sense of uncertainty regarding the company's future.

When employees' minds shift to these macroeconomic anxieties, their focus in the office plummets, and organizational productivity begins to crack from within.

In navigating this new reality, HR must shift from being mere administrators to becoming the primary pillars that build organizational resilience. We can no longer focus solely on drastic cost-cutting, as such measures will only further deteriorate employee morale.

Instead, we need grounded interventions through three main pillars: transparent communication, empathetic leadership, and strategic task optimization, especially as the economic pressures from geopolitical conflicts intensify.

For example, transparent communication means honestly explaining the impact of global crises on the company so that employees do not get trapped in wild speculations that burden their minds.

Empathetic leadership is translated through simple actions, such as managers taking the time to listen to work stress grievances rather than just pushing for output targets when the economy is uncertain.

Finally, strategic task optimization means stopping the pursuit of ten small things simultaneously. Focus on projects that provide the greatest impact. By reducing non-urgent workloads, we give employees room to breathe amidst economic crisis anxieties, thereby avoiding burnout which ultimately harms the organization's own productivity.

In facing this crisis, the HR department must act as an architect of resilience that drives organizational productivity amidst fiscal constraints or tendencies to implement hiring freezes.

This approach demands strategic action. First, conducting a transparent reassessment of workloads to ensure every task provides maximum impact without compromising mental health (burnout risk).

Second, if new hiring is halted, the focus must shift entirely to upskilling and cross-training to enable the existing workforce to fill productivity gaps more efficiently, where shared HR models can be structured more effectively.

At the top management level, leaders now face the difficult dilemma of maintaining the company's financial competitiveness while ensuring that employees' mental well-being does not become a casualty.

The reality is that anxiety over global crises is not merely a personal sentiment, but rather a primary cause of cognitive interference that destroys the quality of work output.

Thus, balancing business needs with human welfare is not an option, but a strategic necessity. Taking steps to create a culture of transparent communication regarding the company's status is appropriate to curb speculation, in addition to fostering an empathetic work culture that supports mental well-being beyond mere output figure demands.

At the operational level, senior management must immediately shift from reactive short-term defensive strategies to a more proactive long-term human capital sustainability agenda.

True organizational resilience is not built through budget cuts alone, but through an environment that makes employees feel safe and valued.

Concrete strategies such as developing robust contingency plans and implementing organizational flexibility, for example, agile work models, will enable employees to manage personal stress without sacrificing productivity targets.

In truth, it is time for us to stop viewing human capital merely as a line item of costs in financial statements that can be cut at will. Instead, we must begin to recognize them as critical assets that serve as the heartbeat of business continuity.

In a landscape full of uncertainty, highly skilled and motivated talent is a strategic investment that determines whether a company will continue to move forward or just barely survive above water.

Losing top talent during a crisis is not only an operational loss, but a heavy blow to the company's ability to bounce back when the economic storm subsides.

Resilience is not the absence of crisis, but the presence of compassion and agility. The organizations that thrive aren't the ones that never stumble, but those with the people-first strategies to pick themselves up and march forward together.

To employees, do not let anxiety over geopolitical conflicts paralyze your focus. Be grateful because by understanding the dynamics of this crisis, you are now more aware and able to build stronger mental resilience.

To organizational administrators, now is the time to act beyond reactive cost-cutting measures and draft effective long-term strategies. By wisely balancing economic demands and workforce welfare, we can ensure that organizations in Malaysia not only continue to survive but remain competitive and productive, even amidst the intensifying global geopolitical storm.

Author’s Background

Associate Professor Dr. Jakaria Dasan holds a PhD in Human Resource Management and teaches Human Resource Development courses at the MBA level. He serves at the Faculty of Business, Economics, and Accountancy at �鶹��Ƶ, where he is also actively involved in postgraduate research supervision for both Master's and PhD students in the field of human resource management. He can be reached via email at jakaria@ums.edu.my.

From Deepfakes To Democracy: Sabah's Digital Dawn For Unity And Prosperity

2026-01-27T14:14:31+08:00

Article By:

Azizan H Morshidi
Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities & Researcher of GEOPES Team
azizanm@ums.edu.my

The Bernama feature “As AI Rushes In, Malaysia Races to Save Jobs, Human Connection” offers a compelling overview of how rapid automation is reshaping work and society at the national level. Its warning that up to 92 percent of clerical and administrative positions are vulnerable to generative AI captures the scale of potential disruption, while its case study of a major bank’s misstep with a voice-bot underscores the perils of displacing human judgment. Applied to Sabah’s imminent 17th State Election, these lessons resonate deeply: the same technologies that threaten routine jobs also possess the power to either fortify or fracture democratic engagement, depending on how stakeholders choose to deploy them.

Sabah’s economy and public administration are still heavily reliant on manual processes and in-person interactions. Many district offices use paper-based record-keeping, and intermittent broadband coverage in rural areas has slowed digital uptake. While this infrastructural lag might temporarily shield local workers from wholesale automation of clerical tasks, it also cements a growing digital divide. In urban centres like Kota Kinabalu and Sandakan, private-sector employers are already experimenting with AI chatbots for customer service, yet these systems often falter when confronted even with popular Sabahan dialects such as Kadazandusun or Bajau. The bank example from the Bernama article is instructive: without investing in nuanced language models and human oversight, automated interfaces frustrate users and erode trust, an outcome equally damaging during an election when citizens seek clear communication from both government agencies and political candidates.

Beyond the risk of job displacement, AI-driven manipulation presents an acute threat to the integrity of PRN17. Deepfake videos have surfaced on messaging apps, falsely depicting infrastructure projects in Sabah as non-functional, thereby inflaming public frustration over supply disruptions. Social-media algorithms, by curating content based on previous interactions, can inadvertently confine young voters to politically homogeneous echo chambers. This echo-chamber effect magnifies sensationalist

claims—whether about infrastructure failures or exaggerated manifestos, while muting fact-based discourse. In an election where youth turnout could tip the balance, such distortions risk alienating first-time voters or, worse, swaying them on the basis of fabricated evidence.

Yet the Bernama analysis did more than highlight perils; it outlined a blueprint for human-centred automation that Sabahan stakeholders may embrace. AI should be leveraged to amplify human strengths, contextual judgment, empathy, cultural knowledge, rather than replace them. For instance, predictive-analytics tools can help state engineers forecast drought risks and optimize water allocation, but human technicians are indispensable for interpreting sensor data in light of local terrain and community needs. Similarly, natural-language processing can translate election guidelines into Sabahan dialects, widening civic participation, but human moderators must verify translations to prevent misunderstanding.

The urgency of upskilling cannot be overstated. Young Sabahan voters are digitally savvy, often consuming political news and campaign materials online. However, their media-literacy skills, particularly the ability to distinguish deepfakes from authentic footage, remain underdeveloped. If Sabah’s youth are to become true stewards of democracy instead of passive data consumers, the state education system must integrate digital-citizenship modules that cover AI ethics, fact-checking techniques, and the science behind algorithmic recommendations. Community colleges and religious study centres in Tawau, Beaufort, and the Interior should host practical workshops where participants examine manipulated media, learn to use open-source verification tools, and discuss the civic implications of unchecked misinformation.

Small and medium enterprises in Sabah are another focal point. Many shopkeepers and agribusiness operators still rely on cash transactions and manual ledgers. Bernama’s survey of nationwide corporate hesitancy, rooted in cost concerns, technical inexperience, and fear of complex deployment, mirrors reality here. To prevent Sabah’s SMEs from falling irreversibly behind, the state government, in partnership with industry associations, must roll out mobile AI-literacy labs. These units would travel to remote communities, offering hands-on training in basic AI tools for inventory management, customer-relationship tracking, and crop forecasting. By bundling these sessions with micro-financing advice, Sabah can stimulate grassroots innovation while building resilience against both economic and informational shocks.

Regulators and digital-platform operators bear a shared responsibility to protect election integrity. The federal election commission’s recent collaboration with social-media companies to take down false election-date posters sets a positive precedent. In Sabah, this effort must be expanded: local research centres and university laboratories should install AI-powered monitoring systems that flag suspicious content in real time. These systems can identify coordinated inauthentic behaviour such as multiple accounts posting the same deepfake, while human analysts evaluate context and escalate confirmed threats. Simultaneously, regulators need to develop clear guidelines on political advertising algorithms, mandating transparency in how campaign messages are targeted to specific demographic groups.

Political parties and candidates themselves have an opportunity to set a higher standard for digital campaigning in PRN17. A public‐pledge initiative could require each candidate to commit to zero tolerance for AI-generated misinformation and to disclose any use of automated tools in their outreach. Those candidates who harness AI for legitimate innovation such as localized chatbots that answer voter queries on polling logistics or automated platforms that gather constituent feedback on infrastructure priorities, should be recognized and celebrated. Embedding responsible-AI clauses in party manifestos will not only build public trust but also signal to voters that tomorrow’s leadership values both technological progress and ethical restraint.

Civil society organizations, from youth councils to interfaith coalitions, have a vital role in bridging divides through technology. Sabah’s communal rice-planting ceremonies and traditional handicraft workshops exemplify the state’s cultural richness, networks of reciprocity and trust that must be preserved in the digital realm. Public hackathons can channel this communal spirit by inviting Sabahan teams to co-create AI applications that promote tourism, streamline fishery supply chains, or map rural heritage sites. These events do more than generate code: they foster inter-ethnic collaboration and surface solutions grounded in lived experience, ensuring that AI supports inclusive prosperity rather than exacerbating inequality.

For Sabah’s youth, the stakes could not be higher. As PRN17 approaches on the heels of Malaysia Day 2025, a moment to celebrate national unity and collective advancement, young voters stand at the crossroads of technology and democracy. They can either succumb to manipulated narratives that breed cynicism or rise as digital champions who demand transparent governance and equitable development. Cultivating this second path requires sustained mentorship from university innovators, local entrepreneurs, and civil-society mentors who can model ethical use of AI in campaign strategy and public service delivery.

By weaving together these elements, human-centred automation, targeted upskilling, robust regulation, ethical campaigning, and community-driven innovation, Sabah can embody the Bernama article’s core thesis: that technology’s true promise lies not in supplanting human connection but in magnifying it. The state’s unique linguistic diversity, patchwork of rural and urban communities, and vibrant youth culture give it a comparative advantage: a living laboratory for demonstrating how AI, guided by cultural nuance and democratic principles, can accelerate shared prosperity.

As voters head to the polls for PRN17, they are not merely casting ballots on infrastructure plans or party platforms; they are choosing how Sabah will navigate the 21st-century challenges of automation, misinformation, and digital inclusion. The Bernama analysis, when adapted to this context, offers both a sobering caution and an inspiring roadmap. It is now up to Sabah’s citizens, leaders, educators, and entrepreneurs to decide whether AI will become a wedge that divides or a bridge that unites, whether our island state will emerge fragmented by technocratic fear or strengthened by a collective commitment to human dignity and mutual progress. In the balance lies not only the outcome of an election but the future shape of democracy and opportunity in East Malaysia.

HUMS, Sabah Pickleball Association Organize Inaugural Juniors Open in Sabah

2026-01-12T16:06:57+08:00

The inaugural 2025 Hospital �鶹��Ƶ (HUMS) Juniors Open Pickleball Tournament marked the beginning of Sabah's pickleball tournament calendar for the year.

It was organized by Kelab Kebajikan dan Rekreasi HUMS (KKRHUMS) in conjunction with the Sabah Pickleball Association (SAPA), and notably, this was the first ever Sabahan tournament devoted exclusively to junior players.

According to the SAPA President, Julita Akabal, the purpose of the tournament was to unearth new talent among junior players, and to encourage new players to further their interest and achievement in the sport.

“This tournament also the best platform to provide veteran juniors with an avenue for high quality competitions at local level to prepare them for inter-state and international events.

“To that effect, the tournament was divided into Novice and Intermediate categories, to encourage new and less experienced players to garner competition experience without fear of being overwhelmed or dominated by state players,” she said.

Meanwhile, Director of HUMS, Associate Professor Dr Malehah Datuk Mohd Noh, who was on hand to witness the U12 closing ceremonies and award the prizes to the winners, commended pickleball as being part of a very important public health strategy especially for younger people, who are currently inundated with the twin evils of smartphone addiction and obesity.

“I was pleased to see many young people join and was happy that for a new sport, there had been such high level of visibility and regular training and competition.

“I hoped that SAPA and HUMS will organize more junior pickleball tournaments and also regular matches and hopes that the UMS Pickleball Arena will one day reach tournament standard,” she said.

The tournament featured 30 junior players between ages 7 to 17, representing more than 10 primary and secondary schools, and even featuring two players with British nationality.

In the U12 male doubles category, Muhammad Ammar Asyraf and Ivanovic Saniyil, both from SK Malawa, achieved victory in the novice category for beginner players, whereas Dominic Ziquan Pang from SJK (C) St James and Seth Ooi Jhu Fen from SRS Datuk Simon Fung were the winners of the Intermediate category for tournament level players.

For the U12 female doubles category, Nursuhannah Mohd Shahnaz and Nurshahirah Mohd Shahnaz, both from SJK (C) Yick Nam, were the victors in the novice category.

The U17 female doubles novice category was won by Sarah and Eliana Sandah from SMK St Francis Convent.

In the U17 male category had a large range of high-level players compete, and they did not disappoint.

The U17 intermediate category was won by Nathan and Samuel Guansing, who narrowly pipped Golden Chong Hon Yee and Jayden Jay Ng from SMJK Shan Tao into second place.

Third place finishers were Ravin Tampi and Jayden Tiu from SM All Saints.

Strengthening Media Oversight to Protect Child Wellbeing

2025-12-30T08:45:25+08:00

Article By: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Abdul Rahman Bin Ramdzan, Public Health Medicine Specialist, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences

Recent concerns have surfaced regarding a children’s cartoon aired on local television that included scenes depicting same-sex romance. This incident has raised public questions about how such content was broadcast during a children’s programming slot and whether current oversight mechanisms within media organisations are sufficiently robust. Although discussions surrounding the issue can easily shift toward moral or political debate, the core matter relates to child development, mental wellbeing, and the responsibility of broadcasters in shaping young minds.

Children are among the most impressionable groups in society. Their cognitive and emotional development is heavily influenced by the media they consume. Television programming, in particular, plays a central role in shaping perceptions, social norms, and early understanding of relationships. While the exposure to diverse narratives is increasingly common in today’s globalised media environment, young children still require content that is clearly aligned with their developmental readiness. When programmes introduce themes that are too mature or complex, such as romantic relationships or emotionally heavy storylines, children may experience confusion or curiosity beyond what they can process healthily.

The primary issue at hand concerns age-appropriate content, not discrimination or stigma. Every nation defines standards for children’s programming based on cultural, societal, and religious values. Broadcasters, regardless of whether they are public or private entities, carry a critical duty to ensure that children’s content aligns with these standards and meets parental expectations. When content falls outside the range considered appropriate for young viewers, questions about the effectiveness of content vetting procedures naturally arise.

The airing of such material suggests potential gaps in existing screening systems. These may include inadequate review of imported programmes, reliance on outdated classification guidelines, or insufficient personnel to manage the increasing volume and diversity of media content. Many modern animations originate from global markets where storytelling norms differ significantly from local expectations, making it essential for broadcasters to thoroughly evaluate suitability rather than relying on visual style alone.

This situation also underscores a broader national challenge: the absence of a coordinated media health literacy framework to support parents and guardians. With the rapid expansion of digital entertainment platforms, families often find it difficult to monitor every piece of content their children encounter. As such, strong, consistent oversight from media organisations becomes a vital safeguard to ensure that vulnerable viewers are protected.

Moving forward, several improvements are necessary.

First, broadcasters should strengthen and modernise their vetting processes by implementing multi-tiered reviews and consulting child development experts where needed.

Second, content classification standards must be updated to reflect the complexities of contemporary media, especially for imported shows with culturally distinct norms.

Third, transparent communication when inappropriate content is aired helps maintain public trust. Offering explanations and outlining corrective steps demonstrates accountability and reinforces the broadcaster’s commitment to child safety.

The recent incident serves as a clear reminder that protecting children requires proactive, preventive oversight. Strengthening content screening systems, modernising guidelines, and recognising the unique developmental needs of young viewers are essential steps toward ensuring a safe and supportive media environment for Malaysia’s children.

What Do Sabah’s “20 Points” Really Guarantee Today?

2025-11-11T11:45:00+08:00

As state polls loom, here’s a clear-eyed look at what’s legally enforceable, and what isn’t.

Article By: Marja Azlima Omar, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Science Social and Humanities

mazlima@ums.edu.my

As Sabah gears up for its next state election, the “20 Points” will resurface, as they always do, on campaign stages and in manifestos. Expect familiar promises: more autonomy, greater revenue share, protection of native rights, Borneonisation of the civil service, control over immigration, language and religion safeguards. But how much of the 20 Points is a legal guarantee you can enforce, and how much is political aspiration that still depends on negotiation? The answer to the question separates law from lore, so voters can press candidates on what is realistically deliverable after the ballots are counted.

First things first: What are the 20 Points?

The “20 Points” were a 1962 memorandum drafted by North Borneo (Sabah) leaders ahead of the formation of Malaysia. It set out conditions they wanted reflected in the terms of federation ranging from religion, language, immigration, fiscal arrangements, native rights, and local control of public services.

Essentially, the 20 Points is not itself a law or treaty. It informed the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Report (1962) and, through that channel, influenced the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), the Malaysia Act 1963, and provisions in the Federal and State Constitutions. In court, judges do not enforce the 20 Points per se; they enforce constitutional text, statutes, and valid legal instruments that embody (or depart from) those points.

So, what is legally enforceable today?

Let us think the enforceability on the 20 Points in the form of a traffic-light spectrum whereby Green are those points that have strong legal footing, Amber on the other hand is those points that need some protection, but contestable. Lastly Red are those points that are political promise, far away from being legal right. The elaboration is as follows:

In the Green Lane are items with firm legal hooks that voters can rely on. Sabah’s immigration controls are entrenched in federal law that gives East Malaysia authority over entry by non-residents; disputes can go to court, but judges will focus on whether officials applied the rules lawfully, not on political preferences. Native law and customs, particularly over land are likewise grounded in written law whereby protection entrenches in the Constitution, land ordinances and native-court structures, so remedies turn on the precise statute and facts before the court. Lastly, Religious and language safeguards operate as constitutional guardrails in the sense that they set boundaries that make arbitrary or discriminatory decisions reviewable and reversible.

The Amber Lane mixes law with politics and administration. Borneonisation is recognised as an objective, yet not as a constitutional quota which means progress depends on public-service rules, Public Service Commission (PSC) practice and transparent targets, with judicial review available only for classic public-law wrongs (illegality, irrationality, procedural unfairness). Fiscal arrangements and special grants exist in the Constitution, but the quantum, timing and formulas commonly require executive negotiation and periodic orders; courts can interpret and police the process, while the actual numbers are hammered out at the table. Education and health devolution is constitutionally possible via concurrent powers and agreements, but delivering it needs intergovernmental compacts, staffing plans, budget lines and systems migration; litigation can clarify who may do what, not conjure the capacity to do it.

The Red Lane flags crowd-pleasing ideas that remain political unless converted into binding instruments. Fixed revenue shares (i.e. a guaranteed percentage of federal taxes collected in Sabah) are not hardwired today; making them real would require constitutional or statutory amendments plus budgetary restructuring and enforceable grant orders. Likewise, automatic veto-style powers for Sabah over federal policy do not fit the current federal design and would need constitutional change with supermajority support and this indeed no small feat. The practical test for any Red-zone promise is simple namely can it be traced to a specific article, bill, regulation or gazetted order with a timetable and enforcement mechanism? If not, it’s rhetoric in search of a legal vehicle

What changed with recent MA63-related moves?

Parliament has in recent years reaffirmed Sabah and Sarawak’s founding-status language in the Constitution and tightened definitions around “Malaysia Day.” Symbolically, this matters. Legally, it strengthens interpretive context for courts and governments to read autonomy provisions purposively. But symbolism does not automatically yield cash, competencies, or headcount. Those still need agreements, regulations, budgets, and sustained administrative follow-through.

Why politicians still cite the 20 Points

It is because the 20 Points is a moral compass and negotiating mandate. It reminds Putrajaya and Sabah’s own leadership what North Borneo believed it was signing up for in 1963. In law, it operates as context and purpose behind constitutional provisions; in politics, it energises demands for devolution, fairer funding, and recognition of native rights.

Voter’s checklist: Five questions to ask every candidate

So, if the politicians/candidates were to bring up 20 Points again (and again) in their manifesto, how should the voters approach the matter? Here are some suggestions/questions to ponder:

Show me the legal hook. - For each 20 Points promise, which exact constitutional article or statute will you use or amend? If it is not in black-letter law, what instrument will you draft?
Timeline and instrument. - Is the plan a federal–state agreement, regulation, or constitutional amendment? When will the draft be tabled, and who signs?
Money on the table. - For fiscal promises, how much (RM), from which vote/head, and what mechanism enforces it (statutory formula, multi-year grant order, or MoF circular)?
Administrative capacity. - If education/health powers shift, which agencies, staff, and IT systems move on Day 1? How will services avoid disruption?
Accountability metrics. - What KPIs will prove Borneonisation is advancing (e.g., percentage Sabahans in Jusa/C-suite posts by year)? What public dashboard will track progress?

How the courts fit into this?

Courts remain vital, but they are not a silver bullet. However, through judicial review they can halt unlawful decisions that breach constitutional safeguards, clarify the scope of existing powers and duties so authorities act within their legal remit, and enforce procedural fairness and basic legality to ensure decisions are made lawfully and transparently.

Three realistic, near-term wins after the election

Three realistic near-term wins after the election are within reach if leaders convert rhetoric into instruments. First, a binding Federal–Sabah Financial Order can translate pledges into a statutory or gazetted grant mechanism with clear review dates and escalation clauses. Second, a Borneonisation Roadmap 2026–2030 via a public service circular. It should set yearly targets, build recruitment pipelines, tie scholarships to service bonds, enable lateral entry, and require an annual report to the State Assembly. Third, a Native Land Justice Package ought to update key land ordinances and court procedures, properly resource native courts, and publish a digitised cadastre to speed up recognition and reduce disputes.

The takeaway

The 20 Points still matter, unfortunately not as a magical key, but as the map legend for what Sabah sought in 1963. In this state election, meaningful change depends on whether candidates can translate that legend into enforceable instruments such as precise clauses, gazettes, budgets, timelines, and dashboards the public can verify. If a promise cannot be traced to a specific legal hook and an implementation instrument, treat it as rhetoric. If it can, hold the winners to it, point by point, if possible.

Protecting Minds and Generations: Upholding the Ban on Alcohol in Educational Institutions

2025-10-31T08:51:11+08:00

Protecting Minds and Generations: Upholding the Ban on Alcohol in Educational Institutions

Article By: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Abdul Rahman Bin Ramdzan, Public Health Medicine Specialist, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences

Recent reports of alcoholic beverages being served during events held on school premises have sparked public concern. While some argue that such functions were organised after school hours and did not involve students, the symbolism of serving alcohol within an educational compound cannot be ignored. Schools represent centres of learning, discipline, and moral development. It is not venues for activities that contradict these values.

Educational institutions must remain neutral spaces, free from the promotion or normalisation of behaviours that could compromise the physical, mental, and moral well-being of young people. The Ministry of Education’s Circular (Surat Pekeliling Ikhtisas) No. 3 of 2018 clearly prohibits accepting sponsorships or conducting programmes involving gambling, tobacco, drugs, or alcoholic beverages. These guidelines are designed to ensure that schools remain safe, healthy environments conducive to holistic development.

From a public health perspective, alcohol is one of the most harmful yet socially accepted substances worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that over 3 million deaths annually are linked to alcohol use, contributing to liver disease, cancer, mental health disorders, and social harm including domestic violence and traffic accidents. When schools allow or tolerate alcohol-related events on their premises, it indirectly signals that such substances are acceptable within the social mainstream — undermining decades of public health education.

From an ethical and moral standpoint, prohibiting alcohol aligns with the Islamic principle of maqasid syariah, which emphasises the protection of intellect (hifz al-‘aql) and progeny (hifz al-nasl). Alcohol impairs judgement, weakens self-control, and erodes the moral fabric of individuals and communities. Upholding the sanctity of schools from such influences is therefore both a moral and societal obligation, regardless of cultural or administrative nuances.

Legally, Malaysia’s Food Act 1983 and Food Regulations 1985 already impose strict controls on alcohol sales, including an age limit of 21 years and the requirement to display clear warning signage. These laws reflect the government’s recognition that alcohol poses significant health and social risks, and that stronger preventive measures are needed to protect minors.

Respecting the ban on alcohol within schools is not about restricting cultural expression or religious imposition, it is about building a healthy, disciplined, and respectful society. As Malaysia continues to nurture its multicultural harmony, the shared goal must be to cultivate future generations grounded in moderation, empathy, and moral integrity.

Protecting our schools from the influence of alcohol is, ultimately, protecting the minds and futures of our children. It is an act of collective responsibility, one that speaks to our shared aspiration for a healthier, wiser, and more dignified nation.

UMS dan UPM Perkukuh Jaringan Tadbir Urus Berintegriti Melalui Lawatan Kerja BIUMS ke Bahagian Governan dan Integriti UPM

2025-10-13T07:34:28+08:00

[ARTIKEL BIUMS Siri 18/2025]

Disediakan oleh: Darwis Awang, Pengarah Bahagian Integriti UMS

Bahagian Integriti �鶹��Ƶ (BIUMS) telah mengadakan satu lawatan kerja rasmi ke Bahagian Governan dan Integriti (BGI), Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) dalam usaha memperkukuh jaringan kolaborasi strategik antara universiti awam (UA) ke arah pengukuhan sistem tadbir urus dan integriti sektor pendidikan tinggi.

Delegasi UMS diketuai oleh YBrs. Tuan Darwis Awang, Pengarah Bahagian Integriti UMS, telah disambut oleh Encik Azizi Ismail, Ketua Bahagian Governan dan Integriti UPM, bersama barisan pegawai kanan bahagian tersebut. Lawatan ini menjadi platform penting dalam memperluas perkongsian ilmu, pertukaran pengalaman dan penerokaan peluang kerjasama strategik antara dua universiti utama negara.

Perbincangan Strategik dan Perkongsian Amalan Terbaik

Dalam sesi perbincangan, kedua-dua pihak berkongsi pandangan mengenai struktur tadbir urus integriti di universiti awam, termasuk mekanisme pelaksanaan program pencegahan salah laku, pengurusan aduan, serta strategi pemantapan budaya beretika dalam kalangan warga universiti.

Darwis Awang dalam ucapannya menyatakan bahawa lawatan ini amat signifikan dalam memperkukuh ekosistem governan berintegriti di peringkat institusi pendidikan tinggi, selain membuka ruang kepada sinergi baharu antara universiti.

“Kami melihat kerjasama antara universiti awam dalam bidang integriti bukan sekadar perkongsian amalan, tetapi sebagai langkah konkrit membina ekosistem tadbir urus yang saling menyokong dan memperkukuh nilai akauntabiliti dalam pendidikan tinggi,” ujar beliau.

Sementara itu, Encik Azizi Ismail turut menzahirkan penghargaan atas inisiatif BIUMS dan menegaskan bahawa UPM sentiasa terbuka kepada perkongsian strategik dengan universiti lain dalam memperkukuh agenda governan berintegriti, budaya kerja berakauntabiliti, dan pencegahan rasuah secara menyeluruh.

Ke Arah Kolaborasi Antara Universiti Awam

Lawatan ini turut membincangkan potensi kerjasama rentas universiti dalam bidang latihan, penyelidikan, dan pembangunan modul pendidikan integriti yang boleh dimanfaatkan oleh semua institusi pendidikan tinggi awam. Inisiatif ini sejajar dengan aspirasi Malaysia MADANI dalam membentuk modal insan beretika dan tadbir urus universiti yang cekap, telus serta beramanah.

Melalui lawatan ini, BIUMS dan BGI UPM bersetuju untuk menjalin hubungan strategik berterusan dalam usaha memperkukuh budaya integriti, termasuk penganjuran bersama bengkel, program latihan dan perkongsian data amalan terbaik dalam tadbir urus universiti.

Lawatan kerja ini menandakan satu langkah penting ke arah pembinaan rangkaian UA Berintegriti, selaras dengan komitmen UMS untuk menjadi universiti yang bukan sahaja cemerlang dalam akademik, tetapi juga unggul dalam nilai etika, governan dan tanggungjawab sosial.

Gaza Blockade Dialogue between the Israel Navy and Tiago Avila (GSF): A discussion on John Austin’s Claim that “International Law is Not Law”

2025-10-02T08:56:15+08:00

Article By:

Marja Azlima Omar

Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Science Social and Humanities,
�鶹��Ƶ
mazlima@ums.edu.my

The Dialogue:

The Israel Navy: “You are instructed to change your course. Any further attempts to sail towards Gaza endangers your safety and places you within an active war zone. If you continue your route and attempt to breach the naval blockade, we will stop your vessel and act to confiscate it through legal proceeding in court”.

Reply:

“Attention Attention Israel Offensice Forces

This is Tiago Avila from the Steering Committee of the Global Sumud Flotilla. We advise you that we are a humanitarian non violent solidarity mission to break the illegal siege imposed by the Israel 18 years ago against the Palestinian people in Gaza and to create a humanitarian corridor.

We carry only food aid, we carry water filters, we carry crutches, we carry a baby formula for the people that you’ve been starving to death. I repeat you ‘ve been committing genocide for 8 decades and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people and that is absolute against international law.

Once again, we are in international waters which is not your jurisdiction, we are heading to Palestinian territorial waters which is not your jurisdiction despite the fact that you think you can occupy that land but it all of this is completely illegal. The highest judicial authority in the world, the ICJ in their provisional rulings on the case opened by South Africa against you for the crime of genocide clearly stated that you are prohibited to hinder any humanitarian mission to get to Gaza once again in the planet of 8 billion people despise you starving children to death bombing hospitals, schools and shelters here we are here with the conscience of the world moving peacefully in a non violent humanitarian mission to take this aid you are not allowed by international law to stop us therefore we do not comply with your request because your request is still an attempt to perpetuate the genocide of the Palestinian people. We are here in solidarity with them so we do not comply with occupation with an apartheid system and with a recist and supremacy ideology called Zionism over”.

Reply: The Israel Navy:”We repeat, this is an Israeli navy, you are approaching a blockade zone”.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1DCbV5ajpU/

The authority and enforceability of international law have long been debated. John Austin, the leading legal positivist of the 19th century, argued that “international law is not law properly so called” (Austin, 1832/1995). He grounded this on his command theory of law, which defined law as commands of a sovereign backed by sanctions. In Austin’s view, because international law lacks a global sovereign and centralized enforcement, it is no more than “positive morality.” This brief write-up revisits Austin’s theory and considers its relevance in the context of the dialogue between the Israeli navy and the humanitarian flotilla heading toward Gaza

Austin’s command theory identified three elements necessary for law namely a sovereign issuing commands, habitual obedience by the governed, and sanctions for disobedience.

On this basis, Austin argued that international law does not qualify as true law because it lacks these essential features. First, there is no single world government or sovereign authority over states, since each state is sovereign (Austin, 1832/1995). Second, international law suffers from weak enforcement, as it does not possess uniform coercive sanctions comparable to those found in domestic criminal law; instead, it relies largely on reciprocity, reputational consequences, or political pressure to ensure compliance. Finally, given that much of international law develops through customs, treaties, and international consensus rather than the commands of a sovereign, Austin dismissed it as “positive morality” rather than binding law. Thus, Austin would argue that the flotilla’s invocation of international law against the Israeli blockade has no binding legal force but reflects moral and political claims.

The dialogue illustrates the contested status of international law. On the part of the Israel’s Position on Power and Sovereignty, they asserted its right to enforce a blockade, warning that any breach would lead to confiscation and legal proceedings. And, such position reflects a sovereign exercising power and issuing enforceable threats, an argument that is closer to Austin’s definition of law.

On the other side, the GSF asserted that the blockade is illegal under international law and cited the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures in the South Africa v. Israel case on genocide (ICJ, 2024). They claimed to be protected by humanitarian law and the right to deliver aid. Yet, they had no coercive means to enforce this legal position, relying instead on moral authority and global opinion. This clash reflects Austin’s point: international law lacks centralized enforcement. The flotilla appeals to international law, but Israel, as a sovereign state with military power, disregards it.

While the Gaza case seems to validate Austin’s scepticisms, his view is overly narrow. international law does have enforcement mechanisms, albeit in a decentralized form. Institutions such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the United Nations Security Council play crucial roles in adjudicating disputes and imposing sanctions when necessary. The flotilla’s reference to the ICJ ruling illustrates how states and actors treat international judgments as authoritative and binding. Moreover, state practice itself reinforces the legality of international law, as states consistently invoke it to justify or challenge actions, demonstrated in the dialogue where both Israel and the flotilla relied on legal arguments to legitimize their respective positions.

The Dialogue also suggests that international law has legal force, not merely moral weight. Furthermore, the validity of law does not necessarily depend on the existence of a single sovereign authority. Since the inception of the United Nations, international law operates through a “horizontal” system of rules that states accept as binding, and compliance with treaties and customary norms remains generally high even without centralized sanctions. In addition, the evolving international order has reinforced the authority of international law, with modern developments such as human rights treaties, humanitarian law, and global tribunals institutionalizing international norms far beyond the limited framework envisioned in Austin’s 19th-century context.

What is apparent is this: the Gaza blockade case highlights the dual nature of international law. On one hand, Austin’s critique is visible whereby Israel is seen as a sovereign state with military control, can disregard international rulings without immediate coercive consequences. However, on the other, the flotilla’s reliance on international law shows its enduring significance as a normative framework shaping legitimacy, global opinion, and even potential long-term accountability for violations.

Thus, while international law lacks the coercive central authority Austin demanded, it nonetheless constrains and influences state behaviour in ways that resemble “law” in both form and function.

John Austin’s assertion that “international law is not law” reflected a rigid positivist view equating law with sovereign command. The Gaza blockade dialogue illustrates both the strengths and weaknesses of his claim. Israel’s ability to enforce its blockade despite international criticism reflects Austin’s scepticism about the enforceability of international law. Yet, the flotilla’s invocation of the ICJ and humanitarian law reinforces that states and actors treat international law as binding and authoritative. Ultimately, international law is law, but of a distinctive kind i.e. without a centralized sovereign yet still capable of shaping conduct, legitimizing claims, and holding violators accountable over time.