Real Reforms Are Worth The Gamble - Rethink Policy On Gambling Licences

Published by Free Malaysia Today, 27 May 2010.

By Gobind Rudra

So now a football-crazy nation is about to be presented with the "gift" of legalised betting. A gift to whom? To crony capitalism, it seems, back with a multi-billion-ringgit bang. A return to an easy-money culture so soon after the Najib administration loudly promised policy reforms to give Malaysia a world-class competitive edge.

The award of a sports-betting licence to Vincent Tan's Ascot Sports makes a mockery of those promises. It also makes a mockery of Barisan Nasional leaders' own honour and morality after they had mocked Zaid Ibrahim's personal values during the Hulu Selangor by-election in April.

And it makes a mockery of the personal morality of Najib Tun Razak, as finance minister and the one who issues the licence, in putting his stamp of approval on rent-seeking after having promised to end it.

Those with vested interests have been salivating over how Vincent Tan flipped the licence to his sprawling Berjaya group for a cool RM525m. Stock market punters and analysts, with commissions in mind, are already talking up the supposed benefits of a new cash cow in that corporate empire.

But those with a nasty turn of mind will ask what was the real behind-the-scenes deal.

Any way you look at it, the Ascot-Vincent Tan licence decision stinks.

Wealth from pie-in-the-sky

Here's the government, supposedly acting in the people's best interests, handing over a lucrative new monopoly licence on the quiet. In effect, it's to an individual who had already benefited when handed Sports Toto on a platter by Dr Mahathir Mohamad in 1985 and going on to become a Forbes billionaire. That wealth was largely built on the RM1 or RM10 a week flung away by the common man hoping for a slice of the pie in the sky.

Mahathir's decision in 1985 was questionable, and remains questionable now, even as the Najib administration follows in his footsteps.

The first question is whether lottery and betting licences should be issued, as a matter of public policy. The second is on what terms, and with what conditions to safeguard the common good.

On both counts, past licence decisions stink, and not just for lack of clarity.

Lottery licences, as handed out by three Malaysian governments, are as good as permits to print money. It amounts to the government allowing the rich to tax the common man, and keep the takings, with small share for the government in the form of duties and gaming tax.

That stinks.

Unanswered questions

The Ascot-Vincent Tan licence is a monopoly licence, given, without competition, and on the quiet, to an individual who is already enormously wealthy after another such licence in the past. No terms have been made public. No safeguards in place to protect the public's larger interests. No one knows what political quid pro quo have been negotiated.

And that stinks.

Gambling revenue goes back to the British people

There is also the question of morality. Not whether it is right to gamble or to allow gambling, but a larger question on the morality of a government which, acting on behalf of all the people, gives away to its friends and allies valuable things that belong to all the people. And of how it leaves the common people short-changed, and tries to make a virtue of it.

On that score, all the Najib, Abdullah and Mahathir decisions stink.

Whether to gamble, or to allow others to gamble, is one for individual conscience to decide. It should not be answered in public policy. Pakatan Rakyat politicians, mainly in Pas and PKR, will try to do so anyway — they can't avoid it, out of conviction and for votes to be won there. But they would be just as morally wrong to impose religious views on public policy, affecting those who do not subscribe to their faiths.

It is only pragmatic to accept that gambling will exist in a pluralistic society, and if left unregulated will only feed the underworld. That calls for licensing, but with strong conditions to ensure that the common good is served, and not made a means to line the pockets of the wealthy or of the powerful.

It calls for a rethink of public policy on gambling licences. Measures already in place in other countries provide examples of how things can be done:

• A regulatory and enforcement body, accountable to Parliament, to issue licences and oversee gambling operations.
• Open, public competition for lottery and betting licences.
• Fixed terms for each licence.
• Discretionary powers of the finance minister removed and vested in the regulatory body. Judicial review restored.
• The bulk of all bets placed to be returned to the public as prize money, grants to worthy public causes, and taxes.
• A fixed proportion of takings to cover expenses and profit margins of licensees.
• An independent trust fund or other disbursement body to openly and fairly distribute betting revenue as grants to the arts, sport, heritage, culture, and for social welfare.
• Grants open to all, decided on by recognised bodies, and all grants made public.
• Power given to local communities, and not to bureaucrats or politicians, to approve setting up of lottery or betting shops within their area.

Gambling money used for worthy causes

The Malaysian public has little to show in return for having allowed licensed lotteries for half a century. Instead, giant corporate empires have grown on the flood of cash from the many thousands taking their weekly flutter. The privatisation of Sports Toto and the closure of the Social Welfare Lottery Board by the Mahathir administration, which led to this, left many questions still open.

Why the need to privatise Sports Toto, then already-profitable, in a quiet private deal?
Why shut down the profitable Social Welfare Lottery Board, instead of similarly privatising it?
What quiet deals were made behind the scenes?
How has the public interest been served by handing over Sports Toto, lotteries and sweepstakes to private firms?
What safeguards for the common good were put in place?
What public oversight is there on legalised gambling?
What does the Malaysian betting public get back from legalised gambling?
What terms were placed on all the licences issued so far? Why all the secrecy?

By allowing a select few to become enormously wealthy from licensed lotteries, the successive Umno-BN administrations and the Malaysian government have plainly shirked their fiduciary duty.

Sports Toto financial statement 2009

Profits and privileges

Sports Toto, for one, has never been held to public account for its contribution to sports, the reason Tunku Abdul Rahman originally allowed the lotto game to be licensed. Its last-known contribution to the National Sports Council in the 2008-09 financial year was RM62m, a laughable 1.7% of the year's takings from bets. Its profits were 15% of revenues.

Sports Toto also makes various contributions to charitable causes, but these appear to be merely part of the common "corporate social responsibility" of all companies. More often, they appear to be a form of corporate patronage, or occasions for cross-marketing within Berjaya group.

By contrast, the UK National Lottery last year took in £5,150m (RM24,900m); 50% is returned as prize money and 40% returned as grants for worthy causes and taxes to the government. Camelot, the UK lottery operator, takes only 10% of revenues, split between the operator and ticket-sellers.

Camelot works with a profit margin of about 0.5% of the lottery's revenues. Sports Toto in 2008-09 made pre-tax profits of RM558m, a 15% return, on betting revenue of RM3,571m.

Without real reforms in gambling licensing, what are the odds that we will all be collectively poorer off? And that the politico-commercial elite all the richer?

Still want to make a bet?

Blood Recipient vs Gay Donor Rights

My blood is ‘gay’, is that OK?

The Malaysian Insider.

WASHINGTON, May 28 — Apparently not, in the UK or US. On June 10-11 the Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability will reconsider the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) 1983 ban on accepting “gay” blood or the blood from any man who has had sex with a man (MSM) since 1977.

World Blood Donor Day takes place on June 14 and this year’s campaign is “New blood for the world” with targeted efforts to get youth worldwide to donate blood not just on June 14 but more regularly without rewards. To be a blood donor, there is a long list of factors that first have to be considered that could make you ineligible for varying periods of time, that can range from travelling/living outside of the US, medications, MSM, cocaine-use, piercings, tattoos, even electrolysis.

The current ban on “gay” blood is centred on men’s sexual orientation rather than lifestyle. On March 9, 18 US senators including former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry urged the FDA to address their “outdated” policy according to the news network CNN on May 26. Kerry wrote, “a heterosexual who has had sex with a prostitute need only wait a year [before giving blood]. That does not strike me as a sound scientific conclusion” given that “gay men, including those who are in monogamous relationships, are forbidden from contributing blood for the rest of their lives.”

However the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continues to show MSM as the highest risk group in HIV transmission and claim that gay men are 15 times more likely to have HIV than the rest of the population.

And, Jay Brooks,MD, professor of pathology at the University of Texas Health Science Center, explained this is about science not about gay rights, adding it has “nothing to do with someone being gay. Any group that’s epidemiologically at risk of making blood unsafe, it’s unfortunate. ... It’s a matter of epidemiology.”

Brooks continued, “The interest of the recipient is greater than any donor” and “I’d hate to tell the one person who got HIV through a blood transfusion, ‘Sorry, we changed the regulation.’ “

Technologies and practices in blood screenings have come a long way since the haemophilia blood contamination catastrophe of the late 1970s and early 1980s where companies were soliciting blood from high-risk individuals including prisoners and junkies.

Various organisations, including the Human Rights Campaign and the American Red Cross, agree that safety is paramount and each and every donor needs to be screened equally irrespective of the sex of their partner. They also agree with Kerry that gay men, who have been cleared the same way heterosexual men are, should be allowed to donate blood and not be banned for life. — AFP/Relaxnews

Bible: A Child's Version

In the beginning, which occurred near the start, there was nothing but God, darkness, and some gas. The Bible says, 'The Lord thy God is one, but I think He must be a lot older than that.

Anyway, God said, 'Give me a light!' and someone did. Then God made the world. He split the Adam and made Eve. Adam and Eve were naked, but weren't embarrassed because mirrors hadn't been invented yet.

Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating one bad apple, so they were driven from the Garden of Eden. Not sure what they were driven in though, because they didn't have cars.

Adam and Eve had a son, Cain, who hated his brother as long as he was Abel.

Pretty soon all of the early people died off, except for Methuselah, who lived to be like a million or something.

One of the next important people was Noah, who was a good guy, but one of his kids was kind of a Ham. Noah built a large boat and put his family and some animals on it. He asked some other people to join him, but they said they would have to take a rain check.

After Noah came Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jacob was more famous than his brother, Esau, because Esau sold Jacob his birthmark in exchange for some pot roast.

Jacob had a son named Joseph who wore a really loud sports coat.

Another important Bible guy is Moses, whose real name was Charlton Heston.

Moses led the Israel Lights out of Egypt and away from the evil Pharaoh after God sent ten plagues on Pharaoh's people. These plagues included frogs, mice, lice, bowels, and no cable.

God fed the Israel Lights every day with manicotti. Then he gave them His Top Ten Commandments.These include: don't lie, cheat, smoke, dance, or covet your neighbor's stuff. Oh, yeah, I just thought of one more: Humor thy father and thy mother.

One of Moses' best helpers was Joshua who was the first Bible guy to use spies. Joshua fought the battle of Geritol with a sling-shot and the fence fell over on the town.

He had a son named Solomon who had about 300 wives and 500 porcupines. My teacher says he was wise, but that doesn't sound very wise to me.

After Solomon there were a bunch of major league prophets. One of these was Jonah, who was swallowed by a big whale and then barfed up on the shore. There were also some minor league prophets, but I guess we don't have to worry about them.

After the Old Testament came the New Testament. Jesus is the star of The New.. He was born in Bethlehem in a barn. (I wish I had been born in a barn too,because my mom is always saying to me, 'Close the door! Were you born in a barn?' It would be nice to say, 'As a matter of fact, I was.')

During His life, Jesus had many arguments with sinners like the Pharisees and the Republicans.

Jesus also had twelve opossums. The worst one was Judas Asparagus. Judas was so evil that they named a terrible vegetable after him. Jesus was a great man. He healed many leopards and even preached to some Germans on the Mount.

But the Republicans and all those guys put Jesus on trial before Pontius the Pilot. Pilot didn't stick up for Jesus. He just washed his hands instead.

Anyways, Jesus died for our sins, then came back to life again. His return is foretold in the book of Revolution.

Kempen PerlembagaanKu/MyConstitution Campaign

If you cannot see this image, click here.

The Prince And The Toad

The Malaysian Insider.

THE PRINCE:

SIBU, May 16 —The DAP pulled off a surprise win in the Sibu by-election today, defeating Barisan Nasional’s (BN) SUPP by 398 votes in a hard fought race.

DAP’s Wong Ho Leng polled 18,845 votes compared to BN candidate Robert Lau’s 18,447 votes.

The margin of victory was just a little more than the 395 spoilt votes. The independent candidate garnered 232 votes.

“Thank you Sibu. Thank you Malaysia. One small step in winning Sibu, one giant step to winning Putrajaya, “ Wong said after he was declared the winner.

BN had earlier been expected to retain its Sarawak stronghold but lost despite the best efforts of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

The victorious Wong called his win tonight a miracle.

“It is a miracle we have created together. For those who did not vote for me I now want to be your friend,” he said.

Read more: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/dap-takes-sibu

THE TOAD:

KUALA LUMPUR, May 17 — Malay rights group Perkasa has again questioned Chinese support for Barisan Nasional (BN), noting that the lack of support in Sibu was similar to the Hulu Selangor vote last month.

Perkasa president Datuk Ibrahim Ali claimed Chinese voters in Sibu did not appreciate the promises and financial aid pledges made by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak during the eight-day campaign.

“The Chinese community openly supported DAP’s policies. The Chinese voters did not appreciate what the prime minister gave to them,” he said, adding Najib had supported the community’s vernacular school system.

The independent Pasir Mas MP has been at the forefront of Malay rights issues and has made Perkasa the country’s largest Malay non-governmental organisation.

“Chinese voters want the Chinese way although Bumiputeras have to accept the compromise made by BN to fulfil their needs,” Ibrahim added when commenting on BN’s defeat.

Read more: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/perkasa-again-questions-chinese-support-for-bn/

I Will Be Still

Hide me now,

Under Your wings,

Cover me within Your mighty hand.

Rest my soul,

In Christ alone,

Know His power in quietness and trust.

When the oceans rise and thunders roar,

I will soar with You above the storm,

Father, You are King over the floods,

I will be still and know You are God.

(The composer of this song is unknown to the blogger)

End fear of 'May 13'

KUALA LUMPUR (May 13, 2010): Over 100 civil society groups has called on the government to make May 13 a day to cherish peace, reason and freedom, instead of a date which continuously creates fear in the society.

"The May 13 riots in 1969 was an unfortunate episode in Malaysia’s history in which lives were lost and properties destroyed as politics broke down into violence," said former Bar Council president Datuk Ambiga Sreenivasan.

"But thankfully, Malaysia has since moved forward as a nation in denouncing political violence," she said at a joint press conference today.

She said after the March 8, 2008 general election, attempts to trigger ethno-religious tensions and justify authoritarian controls have been resolutely defeated by condemnation by Malaysians of all ethno-religious and socio-cultural backgrounds.

Ambiga cited the cow-head protest last August and the desecration of places of worship in January this year, as evidence that many Malaysians are against provocative racial sentiments and those who propagate them.

"Today Malaysians have expressed disgust against politicians who bring issues relating to race," she said.

Condemning the "Melayu Bangkit" rally organised by Gerakan Kebangkitan Rakyat (Gertak), which was initially scheduled to be held yesterday, Ambiga questioned the true agenda and motive of the rally.

"No matter what the organisers may say or how they may deny about the intention of organising such a rally, Malaysians are not stupid (to believe) due to the theme of the rally, which is instigative in nature and the date it was planned to be held," she said.

She questioned the government’s stand on the rally, which was postponed to another date yet to be announced, as Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak asked to call off the rally for "security reasons".

"The government should have called off the rally because it was racist in nature and created uneasiness amongst other races in a multi-racial society," said Ambiga, who also questioned the involvement of a government agency in organising the rally.

"While freedom of speech and freedom of assembly for all political persuasions should be celebrated, any attempt to exploit the anniversary of May 13 to glorify political violence or instil fear is disgraceful and should be shunned by the public."

"In addition, any commemoration of the tragedy involving state funds and resources must be inclusive in both content and target group," Ambiga stressed.

Acknowledging that Malaysians today are better informed and active participants in politics, Ambiga said any attempt to mock or trigger another May 13, whether to subdue citizens or to seize power, may end in "complete political destruction of the culprits".

Meanwhile, lawyer and social activist Haris Ibrahim, who is the coordinator of Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia project, called on the government to form a 'Truth and Reconciliation Commission' to find out the truth behind the dark incident. -- theSun

Whose Battle, Whose Money: Hulu Selangor KPI For Najib?

We've Lost!

We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values.

We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.

We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.

We have killed our unborn and called it choice.

We have shot anti-abortionists and called it justifiable.

We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem.

We have abused power and called it politics.

We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.

We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it
freedom of expression.

We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

By Joe Wright

That Handbag I Used To Have

Have to admit, I wasn’t fashion conscious when it comes to owning a handbag. I used to buy whatever bag that in my opinion will be long-lasting. Economical. As long as it won’t make me look like an aunty going to pasar. Anyway, my usual attire doesn’t match a branded handbag. In fact, expensive handbag doesn’t suit my personality.

Until one fateful day, while window shopping I saw that handbag on the display. It was sleek, black with purple lining and a lengthy silver strap. My eyes just couldn’t move elsewhere. Transfixed, mesmerised by it. Its price was beyond my means at that time. Out of my reach. Forget it, my instinct told me. So close yet so far away.

Resigned to my fate, I went back to my office in misery. But I couldn’t forget it. Something in me refused to give up. Suddenly I found a motivation to work extra hours.

After a few months, with enough cash but lacked of sleep, I bought the bag. Now, it’s mine! Never have I ever felt such satisfaction in my life!

Obsession seeped into my life. Took it wherever I went. Proudly showed to all my friends. Swallowed all the praises and feasted on their envious looks. Bought dresses, accessories and shoes just to suit it. Almost bought a new car for that.

Things changed when you least expected it. Sometimes you wish the spring will remain forever but autumn will arrive, then winter envelopes you with cold. The handbag began to hook on anything and everything that has a handle. The doorknob, the tree branch, the gate and even my car door. As if it refused to follow me anymore. Caused me to trip and fall a few times.

First frustrated, then devastated. What went wrong? I tugged, gently pulled and even tried to keep it in a safe place. Once change has occurred, things’ll never be the same.

Wisdom took over. Realised a handbag is a handbag. It’ll never be something beyond that, ever. It is not the same as money, a house or car. Money can provide for my needs. House, a roof over my head from the blazing sun and storms. I am free to go anywhere with my car. Not going to be miserable for a bag. Not anymore. I’ve given the wretched bag to another. There are many things in life that I can enjoy.

This is me. I've been set free!

Treating religious minorities with respect

The Nutgraph, 5 May 2010.

By Ding Jo-Ann
dingjoann@thenutgraph.com

REV Dr Olav Fykse Tveit, general secretary of the World Council of Churches (WCC), was recently in Kuala Lumpur for the 13th general assembly of the Christian Conference of Asia. Tveit has been heavily involved in interfaith dialogue as moderator of the Church of Norway-Islamic Council of Norway. He was also co-chair of the WCC Palestine-Israel Ecumenical Forum core group, and has called on churches to support a just and sustainable peace to the conflict.

In an exclusive interview on 15 April 2010 in Kuala Lumpur, Tveit shares with The Nut Graph his experience in crafting a joint declaration on religious freedom together with his Muslim partners in Norway.

TNG: Tell us about the joint declaration on freedom of religion and the right to conversion. How did this document come about, and why was there a need for it?

Olav Fykse Tveit: [The right to change one's faith is central to freedom of religion.] In this context, we raised the question: is missionary activity disturbing or even a problem for religious freedom? Can missionary activity be conducted in a way that doesn't really give people a free choice? Are there unethical methods used to try to convince people to change their faith?

As we were doing this, some of our Muslim partners [in the Oslo Coalition on freedom of religion] said they knew of some Muslim groups conducting missionary activities in a non-ethical way. And they also knew of Christian groups doing the same. So we realised that this was not just about us being self-critical as Christians, but also a theme that many of us were interested in.

[In developing this declaration], we saw it as a national Norwegian issue and also an international issue. In Norway, it is not so much legal issues, but more of attitudes and behaviour. Whether families accept their children making another choice of religion, whether as Christians or Muslims ... But if we want Norway to be a society where we can live well together, we as religious leaders have to be very clear in saying we have to accept the individual's choice.

This is in accordance with our different faiths. Neither for Christianity nor Islam is there legitimacy in trying to make people hypocrites. We want people to be honest followers.

From a more international perspective, we also wanted to challenge the international context and discussion on this. Is religion really something you can regulate by laws? What kind of religion will that be in the end? We found that we had a common understanding of this as Muslims and Christians.

What was the international response to the joint declaration?

It received a lot of attention. Some responses have been, "This is very important, and also theologically right, thank you for raising this." In some Muslim contexts, there have been discussions on whether [religious freedom] is possible or advisable.

In many other cultures, conversion is seen as disloyalty to the country, and not only a matter of faith. So some have said, "In Norway you can have this declaration, but in other countries it's more complicated."

Still, I think, both Muslims [and Christians] in Norway find it appropriate to say, "Well, this is how we see it, why are you not willing to discuss it?"

How does interfaith dialogue occur when one party is dominant in the dialogue? For example, if they are a majority in the country or have more political power?

My conviction and my experience is if the majority does not understand that the value of the dialogue is dependant on how valuable it is for the minority, then there is no sense in it. Otherwise, as long as it is seen as another expression of majority ruling over the minority, it makes no sense, and can also be devastating and destructive.

That means the majority has to believe in the power of humility, and not in the power of majority. To have another dimension in dialogue, not about numbers, but about what our values are, what kind of fellowship we want to have together, and what kind of solidarity we need if we want to live together in one society.

Another dimension is that we really have to apply the golden rule. What we want others to do for us, we should do for them. So we need to try to imagine ourselves in the others' shoes. Muslims in Norway need the same rights as Christians to have their prayer rooms in public buildings, to express their faith publicly, to have access to halal food in the military service — all this is important.

If we as Christians say, "Well, that's their problem", we are not really following the golden rule. If we follow it, because we are also believers, we should fight for Muslim rights to have their religious expression.

I was very concerned about the debate and referendum on the right to buildminarets in Switzerland. I realise that some argued, "Well, Christians don't have the right to build churches in many Muslims countries either, so why should they have these rights in our countries?" It's exactly that attitude that's not bringing us further. Even if someone else is doing something wrong, we should not do the same.

I think Muslims also hear and see if you try to express that — that you are welcome here, be yourself, there is a way we can live together. Maybe that is also the best help for Christian minorities [in Muslim-majority countries]. Then, Muslims [in these countries can] see that Christians are really supporting Muslims and their rights in other cultures.

Ceiling of a church (left) and a mosque (Pics by beriliu and ctkirklees / sxc.hu)

What would your response be to those who say that having interfaith dialogue is legitimising other faiths and putting them on the same level as your own religion, and diluting claims of truth in your own religion?

What is the alternative to dialogue? That we don't speak to one another? That we fight, or ignore or hurt one another?

If we are going to live together as human beings, we have to try to understand one another. We dialogue because we are different, not because we have the same thoughts and principles. It's also important to identify what we have in common. These are ways to build fellowship.

I don't see that the aim of dialogue is to agree on everything. Sometimes, it's more important to understand: well, this is your perspective, I have another one. Sometimes, through dialogue, I can have a better understanding of my own religion because some things become clearer to me.

I don't think that we should be in dialogue as a [method] of evangelism. Of course evangelism always means that we talk to one another and share with one another. But if dialogue is used as a kind of effort to convert, then it's not real dialogue. In any dialogue, we have to be open to being convinced that there is something else I should know, and understand that I haven't understood before.

Some say that only experts should talk about religious issues and the rest should not. Who should participate in interfaith dialogue, and how does this occur? Does the government have to initiate attempts at dialogue?

Everyone should participate in interfaith dialogue. The leaders have the responsibility to bring theological expertise and reflection into dialogue, and also to take leadership and show that dialogue is important. [Leaders should] try and stimulate people who live together on the same street to talk to one another.

I'm quite sure [such people] are very qualified to dialogue. They have their faith, conviction and experiences. They also know what the conflicts and problems are. In some way, sometimes they are more qualified to dialogue because they experience the daily life of being together or being in tension with one another.

On the other hand, some political problems have dimensions and perspectives that are related to religion. So politicians should involve religious leaders in their dialogue; otherwise they may not be able to understand and get the best ideas to solve their conflict.

The most obvious problem is the Israel-Palestine conflict. If there's no dialogue about the holy places, who should have access to them, and the values held by the three main religions there, how can there be a political solution? This is an outstanding example, but there are many other examples where if this dimension is ignored, it causes more problems than you need.

What incentive is there for the majority to want to dialogue, especially if the laws and the state are in their favour?

Is it a good society if there are minorities in that society which are suffering? Is that the society we want to be? I think the quality of a society is defined by how it treats its minorities.

If minorities are suppressed on the basis of religion, how can this be according to the principles of our religions?

See also:
Orang Asli converted against will
What possessed the protesters?