Talk:Malaysia

An event mentioned in this article is an August 31 selected anniversary.

Malaysian Wikipedians can be found here.

Arabs in Malaysia

In the Demographics section, "most Middle Easterners are mostly Arabs who first brought Islam to Malaysia" is a controversial statement (as well as containing too many "most"s). Many people believe it was the Chinese who first brought Islam to Kuala Berang, a century or so before Islam was brought to Malacca. Nor, as far as I know, is it clear that Arabs brought Islam to Malacca; I've always read that it was brought there primarily by Indian and Persian traders. I have therefore edited out "who first brought Islam to Malaysia" (and gotten rid of the redundancy) from the above phrase. Anyone who can point to clear evidence connecting the Kuala Berang stone (sorry its name slips my mind) with Arabs can reinsert this text.

Michael

Well, the KBSM approved history books provide three theories without stating preference: Arab influence, Chinese influence and Indian influence. So I guess it WOULD be presumptious to put the "middle easterners" statement in.

Putrajaya

(I don't really agree with this fact. Putrajaya is only an administrative centre for Malaysia and not its new capital. The capital of Malaysia is still Kuala Lumpur. I will try to find the most authorative fact for this) - sharuzzaman@excite.com

Thanks for making corrections! While you're here, though, you might want to take a quick look through Welcome, newcomers, be bold in updating pages, and talk page. In general, the custom is to put comments like the above in the Talk page rather than directly in the article; but of course you're certainly welcome to correct the information directly there! Brion VIBBER

Country Template

The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries is a useful resource to peruse. -- sabre23t 14:25, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Malacca vs Melaka and Penang vs Pulau Pinang

Ref the recent 161.142.10.27 edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Malaysia&diff=0&oldid=5207062) on Malaysia#States. Further discussion on it is over at Talk:States_of_Malaysia#Malacca_vs_Melaka_and_Penang_vs_Pulau_Pinang. Meanwhile, I had made sure #redirect are in place so the actual state articles are reachable. -- sabre23t 09:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Peninsular Malaysia aka West Malaysia

"Peninsular Malaysia ON/OR the Malay Peninsula is bordered to the" I thought P. Malaysia is another name for the Malay Peninsula. Nothing north is Malay (actually anything kedah and north is thailand except for treaty with the british...anyway thats history). How? --Malbear 06:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Peninsular Malaysia (aka West Malaysia) is wholly within Malaysia.

Malay Peninsula consist of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore, southern Thailand and southern Myanmar.

-- sabre23t 08:02, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not to beat on a dead horse but a few Thai states above Kedah are Malay. Pattani, Songkhla, Yala and Narathiwat are Malay states. They even speak Malay. More info is available in Thailand. __earth 02:11, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

The coat of arms depicted is outdated. It should be changed to the current one.

User:TheSeez, do you have a better image than that Image:Malaysia_Coat_of_Arms_small.jpg? Anyway, I've updated the article with that, for now. -- sabre23t 08:31, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The link should point to Emblem of Malaysia, not Coat of arms of Malaysia. Most of other pages about countries use the phrase Emblem of <some country>. Please do not change. We need to be consistent. __earth 08:25, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to interfere, for joining the Wikipedia for less than a weeek, I think still to be considered as a newbie. Regarding the Emblem, the In Details wasn't there before therefore, I thought of adding this Coat of arms of Malaysia (content shifted from Image:Malaysia_Coat_of_Arms_-_flat.png) to make it complete not knowing that that the Emblem of Malaysia exist. As a new comer, not knowing the appropriate ways for editing, I always take references from other pages, for this case, pages of otner country profiles and List of national coats of arms. I really don't know why it is to say that "We need to be consistent", as most (from my point of view) of the country profiles use the phrase Coat of arms insted of Emblem, few uses Seal. At least all of the ASEAN countries use the earlier (some don't have the In Detail); most of the Commonwealth of Nations except Cameroon, India and Pakistan, use the ealier too. Correct me if I'm wrong. Like I said, I'm still learning. Thanks. --Garlics82 08:52, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

History

I see wilz has concerns with Malaysia#History section ...

Removed reference to Badawi releasing Anwar. The court released Anwar, not the prime minister. This history segment needs to be rewritten - it contains WAY too much bias against Mahathir.

I think that section certainly need some work, 9 paragraphs for an overview to a main article at History of Malaysia. I guess most of that section can be reworked down to say 3 paragraphs covering overall Malaysian History, and some stuff can be moved to the main article History of Malaysia. In this particular case, you can safely just be bold in updating that section as per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, I think. ;-) -- sabre23t 05:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anyone care to refactor Malaysia#History into History of Malaysia? All of the former should be in the latter main article. So the former is just a summary of the latter. -- sabre23t 22:45, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would love to do that but I won't be able to it until the weekends. But I trust it would be fairly easy to do that without much complication. So, almost anybody can do it. If nobody does it by the weekends, I'll do it.__earth 02:07, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, can't find the goddamn time. __earth 01:42, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I guess with the current edit war, I'll wait for the water to calm down __earth 00:56, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

I've now moved almost all "new history" into History of Malaysia, and swapped in its old paragraph. This is quite crude and further copyediting is needed & welcome. Vincent Tan has also been given a life of his own. Jpatokal 14:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the article is biased and thus, I added Stigliz's admiration of Malaysia to give a sense that not all were against what Malaysia did during the financial crisis. __earth 20:43, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

removed "as a result of Prime Minister Mahathir's policies"
We could put "in spite of Prime Minister Mahathir's policies", both would be equally unprovable so let's keep the opinion out of the article.--Malbear 17:27, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removed It has also been said that Malaysia, with a fixed peg against the US dollar is disadvantaged in competing with countries such as India or Thailand who have greater flexibility in currency management and hence can offer goods at cheaper prices.

I removed it because a flexible exchange rate doesn't mean the ability to sell product at a cheaper price. If a currency (such as China's for instance in the real world), is being set weaker than all countries, such country will still be able to sell things cheaper than any country with flexible exchange rate regime. See economics topic on exchange rate related models for details. __earth 03:44, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Untrue. Fundamentally when a governmnt devalues its currency it makes good cheaper and industries more competitive. Example, 1 Ringgit is worth 1 UD dollar. Malaysia produces bananas. 1 Thai Baht is worth 1 US dollar, they also sell bananas. Let's assume both countries sell bananas to the US (yes an over simplification but not by much). If the Malaysian governemnt were to devalue the currency to 2 RM to 1 USD, then Malaysian bananas would be worth 0.5 USD. Therefore buyers in the US would, assuming the item is price sensitive, buy more Malaysian bananas than thai bananas. Fundamentally devaluing a currency is a good way to sell cheap goods.

Deliberately pricing downwards usually leads to dumping tariffs being slapped on your products especially by the US since the local industries/unions/politicians etc. start thumping their chests whenever there is import related issues. This is ESPECIALLY relevant for Malaysia since I believe trade is running at 4 times GDP. We don't use much of what we produce, we export it. --Malbear 08:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Basically, what you are saying on devaluation of the exchange rate is true but I am not contesting that. All I'm saying is that pegging is not devaluing. They are two different but related concept in macroeconomics. Please refer to the Mundell-Fleming model for clarification on implications of the two concepts.

China is a perfect example of a competitive currency with fixed exchange rate regime. And thus, saying Ringgit is being uncompetitive because of pegging is untrue. Ringgit is uncompetitive only if it is more expensive compared to other currencies. Furthermore, with the US Dollar weakening against other major currencies, Malaysian Ringgit has automatically become more competitive.

Again, flexibility is not source of competitiveness. The level of the rate itself is the source of competitiveness.__earth 19:42, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV notice

Last night, I NPOVed a lot of bias in the article, such as the overt anti-NEP rants, as well as the use of several biased phrases and wording. Today, I see that the POV is back. I'm tired of all this. Obviously, those who don't agree with the opposition's ranting about how evil the government is are disenfranchised on Wikipedia; now, four major articles on Malaysian politics have the NPOV notice on them: Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim, Bumiputra and Malaysian New Economic Policy. All of them are focused solely on presenting the opposition's viewpoint; while I agree that the NEP's benefits are damn racist, declaring it to be the same as Apartheid (however true that may be) is outright bias. Obviously this tide of anti-government-ism is not going to be stemmed any time soon, so I give up on these articles. POV them all you like. Johnleemk | Talk 08:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So calling a spade a spade is now POV? Ok give me the bleeding heart PC word for apartheid and I will gladly use it. Every phrase used has a certain connotation and yes apartheid connotates that a ruling power has used their ruling advantage to their own advantage. Can you think of another term for this or shall we keep it out simply because you happen to be uncomfortable that this term is used?--Malbear 10:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well hey, why don't you just call the bumiputras Nazis while you're at it? Until Malaysian Chinese are rounded up into bantustans, denied the right to vote and killed by death squads, don't try to elevate yourself to Nelson Mandela's status. Apartheid (have you read the article?) means a lot more than "a ruling power using their ruling advantage to their own advantage" (and I thought that was representative democracy...) Jpatokal 11:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes that's why we are trying to work out the right term. I submit that the term is not affirmative action since it would give the wrong tones. Basically the situation we have is this. In some African countries black people are trying to rob white farmers of their lands and term it "re-distribution". If I went to your bank account and took your money and then gave it to beggars outside the bank this is not affirmative action. AA is finding the person who "wronged" you and righting that wrong. For example in a race, a person deliberately hits your vehicle and perhaps the judges decide that this action cost you 3 minutes. AA is making the other driver give you back that three minutes by either setting your clock back three minutes or slowing him down three minutes.

We have already proven that

It was not the chinese or indian that disadvantaged the malay. In fact the situation is clearly quite different if you look at the figures on ownership.
The malays have political power so its not so clear cut where discrimination starts and AA ends.
To just term it AA would be very very simplistic.--Malbear 11:43, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wrong. In America, everyone not from certain races are disenfranchised in affirmative action. Our article on affirmative action itself notes that Chinese are not subject to affirmative action, and thus are treated like whites in university admissions. The Chinese have never employed Black slaves. You can see a short discussion of whether the discrimination in Malaysia is affirmave action on Talk:Affirmative action. Johnleemk | Talk 15:01, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, if we are looking for the right term, why not just call the New Economic Policy the "New Economic Policy" ? --mike40033 04:00, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think if you will all take perhaps a little break and read all the way through the WP:NPOV article, it may help. I will watch this page a while and see if I can follow the conflict well enough to comment, but I would appreciate it if all parties could read the WP:NPOV all the way through first. Tom - Talk 16:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The correct link is WP:NPOV [Thanks. Tom ]. I've read it before, and I noticed a quote that encapsulates basically what I'm trying to say whenever I ask for neutrality:

Karada offered the following excellent advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" -- we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, cite your sources.

Johnleemk | Talk 16:54, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing WP:NPOV and for being previously familiar with it. I would ask Malbear to do the same. I expect that may take a while. So see you later. Tom - Talk 17:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does the NPOV warning on this page still apply? I just read it and it doesn't sound too bad anymore; can it be removed? QVanillaQ 23:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for intruding or offending the community, just happened to pass by and glance over; I notice that a lot of the sentences and style isn't quite encylopedic as it should be. For example, its overly assertive when it shouldn't. Firstly, I think as an encyclopedia, try to eliminate parantheses/brackets unless absolutely necessary - otherwise it seems unprofessional and too awkward. Brackets explaining a non-English term is excusable. A whole sentence within a bracket - well that should be avoided. Case in point: in the Geography section: "Tanjung Piai, located in the southern state of Johor, is the southernmost tip of continental Asia. (Singapore also claims this title, but it is debatable whether the man-made causeway connecting it to Johor makes it an extension of the continent.)" Highly awkward to read, especially it reads slightly off (especially being next to an image). Secondly, shouldn't we avoid generalisations whenever possible, or at least express an semi-opinion by stating "it can be said that...", for example.

Another point, "Kuala Lumpur's stable macroeconomic environment, in which both inflation and unemployment stand at 3% or less, coupled with its healthy foreign exchange reserves and relatively small external debt" - its slightly too assertive, mostly by style, not content. Do you mind if I make it become "Many corporations and investors believe that Kuala Lumpur has a stable macroeconomic environment, among which includes inflation and unemployment under 3%", because I think it would sound better. Maybe its just English style, but compressing four different wide-ranging properties and only using one or two verbs sounds awkward and assertive. Also, "Malays, Chinese and Indians living side by side" - side by side is a bit of a generalisation, or rather, a metaphor, and not an encyclopedic definition, so shouldn't there be another word for that?

These are just stylistic things I would like to point out, that when rewritten, sounds more professional. Sorry if I offend anyone by stating this, because I know very little about Malaysia and probably shouldn't have the audacity to post here. Natalinasmpf 00:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Is it possible to ban some of the vandals? __earth 04:36, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

I was discussing it on the IRC channel last night. The eventual conclusion was yes, they're pesky, but it's not really grounds for blocking yet. Johnleemk | Talk 07:21, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No ground?

Mahathir Bin Mohamad is also a strong supporter for Osama Bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network. Mahathir invited Osama Bin Laden to set up a shrimp farming operation in Kedah - a state where Mahathir was born - a shell front to money laundry for the al-Qaida terrorist organisation.

If that doesn't sound like a ground, I don't know what does. I strongly think we have a strong case of banning though it seems that the vandal keep switching IP. Nevertheless, his submask is the same. __earth 01:01, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

The technical definition of people like these is "POV warriors". While annoying, they aren't strictly vandals, so until we draft a policy for handling them, we cannot do more than warn them. I intended to block the guy, but other, more experienced admins, objected. This actually isn't vandalism — vandalism is blanking the article, or replacing the text with "Malaysia sucks" or other such inane chicaneries. This is actual content, and as such isn't covered by the vandalism rules. It sucks, but there's little we can do for now. Johnleemk | Talk 06:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think we should lock the page for awhile. I hope that will be enough to deter vandal. __earth 22:02, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Economy

Malaysia, a middle income country, transformed itself from 1971 through the late 1990s from a producer of raw materials into an emerging multi-sector economy via the Apartheid-like New Economic Policy (NEP), which also introduced a stronger bumiputra system.

What does a bumiputra system means? I don't think that is relevant in the economy section. If it does mean anything, it should be in history. The economy section should explain the economy, not the social structure or anything alike. If nobody opposes, I'll delete this later. __earth 01:15, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Removed. NEP is now called "controversial", so anybody interested can read that article for why. Jpatokal 04:33, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I edited the mention of the NEP in the main article to give a clearer view of its objectives, as defined by the government. The initial "designed to enrich the Malays" line seems, to me, too biased. - chibikit

the NEP was initially designed to increase the national percentage of local holdings to foreign holdings to a ratio of 30:40:30. 30% malay 40% others and 30% foreign. However, in IMPLEMENTATION, government help, funded by taxpayer monies was used only to increase the Malay portion and never the "others (meaning cina, indian dan lain lain). DESPITE, the "implementation" (not the "stated goal") of the NEP, the "dan lain lain" parts of the country managed to increase their share of the national pie. Ironically enough the Malaysa never did reach 30% even though all the help under the NEP went to them. Now kindly stop mucking around with the sentence. The NEP never intended to "take away" from any "rich" local race. It was intended to increase local holdings at the expense of foreign holdings (such as Sime Darby, Guthrie etc etc, go read a history book). Unfortunately the only people it gave anything to where the ones who failed, till today, to achieve the goals of the NEP. --Malbear 08:23, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Read your edit. It looks better now. Thanks - chibikit

Gambling concessions

I don't know where the sordid story of Vincent Tan's gambling concessions belongs, but it sure doesn't belong in the main Malaysia article's History section, which is supposed to provide a nutshell summary with the bulk going into History of Malaysia. We now have two (2) paragraphs covering Malaysia up to 1867, and ten (10) covering the post-1997 era!

So any suggestions on where to put this stuff is welcome. Vincent Tan? Gambling in Malaysia? Jpatokal 14:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think we should just throw off the gambling stuff. It is pretty much irrelevent when it concerns Malaysians history and yeah, Vincent Tan is cool if anyone wants to do the gambling concessions. __earth 01:17, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Actually is not the gambling concesion per se but rather that it was a decision overturned by the incoming regime. I do agree it should be summarized and a pointer should be made to where it is more relevant.--Malbear 08:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the page should place under "policy". One must take note that the majority Malaysia race , Malays, are practicing Islam. While Islam are against gambling, the topic is a good example of contradicting policy in play.slan

Calling Code

Refer to Calling Code: 60 Also 020 from Singapore

Note that 020 calling code from Singapore is NOT interchangeable with IDD code 60. 020 calling code works as to replace +60 (including international call prefix and IDD code 60 assigned by the International Telecommunication Union in standard E.164), in other words, one needs no dail the international call prefix (the '+' or '00' as applies to some countries) for the 020 calling code to call Malaysia in Singapore!!!

Also note that there are 3 main Telco Operators in Singapore (namely SingTel, M1 and StarHub, though SingTel is considerably monopolizing in Fixed Line Telco Services) but the 020 calling code is exclusively operated by SingTel. In order to use the 020 calling code in M1 or StarHub's services, one needs to apply and register to SingTel for an 'account' to use the calling code from M1 or StarHub's services.

Hi 219.93.174.102. I've no objection if you remove "Also 020 from Singapore". --sabre23t 22:06, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

External link

I don't think blogs and the so-called directories of malaysian sites are necessary. Only official or prominent site like news or govt site deserve to be included. Blogs are certainly out of the question. __earth 06:34, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Would demur on this. The criteria for including a link is relevance to the topic. Example if you are writing about "X" but "X" is already covered on a website outside then by all means point to it. An external link is for people to find out more. Not an appeal to authority. So if any blogger out there has good info which is comprehensive on Malaysia then he/she should be linked. IMHO, the local gov sites are next to useless (except for a few such as EPF/LHDN/CCM etc). Information on Malaysia is usually more complete and accurate of the CIA world factbook. As for the idea of "deserving"........--Malbear 17:19, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a link repository. External links should be used sparingly, and I argee with Earth that the main Malaysia page is not the place for random blogs. Jpatokal 10:51, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

that's not what is in conflict. I am pushing for removal of ALL links which are there now since none of them actually fulfill any measure of "topicality". Yes they can be moved to other pages.

What on earth are you talking about? You said blog is okay but then say you are pushing for removal of all links? __earth 21:14, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

No i am not saying a blog is ok. I am saying that non-topical links are not ok and not just limited to blogs. Largely as the situation stands now the links there are all non-topical or rather suited to oother sub topics.--Malbear 13:54, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Faster, pussycat! KILL KILL KILL! Now there's three left, all hopefully reasonable topical. One government portal, one official tourism site, one Wiki tourism site. Jpatokal 17:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia are mean to provide user the BEST information and stay CURRENT. I think excluding the blogger will limit the view. For example, this is a blogger that give a topical [1] (http://www.sixthseal.com/) view of his life, in Malaysia. And centralise blogger directory such as petalingstreet.org (http://www.petalingstreet.org/) will give you a glance of what Malaysian are interested. Official site will not tell what are the people interest in, and what is the "in" and what is out, etc so and so. But blogger site will give you those "no-so-official-but-lifely info". I suggest we start an wiki topic on "Malaysia blog" and put it under external link. Sltan 07 feb 2005

No. If we start putting blogs, they will come back in swarm, adding more links from wikipedia to them. It happened before and I don't think some of us are willing to do it all over again. __earth 12:55, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

National Flower

I think we forgot about the National Flower, the hibiscus. (Bunga Raya) Can someone check it out and then add it on the space after the flag & coat of arms? Thanks - Mailer diablo 18:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ASEAN and Southeast Asian templates

My suggestion is to move the SEA template to the geography articles of each country. It overlaps with the Southeast Asia template, the only reception would be with East Timor, but since they're related in a sense of geography, it should go there. Any other opinions on this? --Andylkl 18:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ermmm, I don't know why there are two templates, but in that case just retain both. Other countries, for example like the UK, has both the geographical Europe and European Union (EU) templates. But it's fine with me if you want to stick to your suggestion and retain ASEAN. - Mailer diablo 21:03, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Non-Muslims in Malaysia

If anyone thinks the title of the article Discrimination against non-Muslims in Malaysia is not neutral .. please go there and vote OneGuy 00:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Geographical thingie: concerning volcanoes and earthquakes

can someone with real knowledge in this field include some information under Geographics about how malaysia is free from earthquakes and volcanoes?

I'm no geologist but I can say Malaysia is relatively safe from earthquake because it is in the middle of a plate instead at the edge of it. __earth 16:38, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Jawi

Jawi is not an official script of Malaysia, so what is the rationale behind using it in the infobox? Jpatokal 09:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know the Malay language is the official language but is the romanized script is the official script? __earth 10:27, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Titles of nobility

Could someone who is familiar with Malay culture and history look at this article: Thai royal and noble titles, and write a similar one for Malay titles such as Tun, Datuk, Dato Seri etc etc? Adam 03:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's at Malay titles __earth 06:39, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you. Adam 08:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Race Porportion

An anonymous user just changed the race porportion to 65% Malay, 20% chinese, 10% indian and 5% "other". Any figures to back this up, or should we revert? User: Borisblue

My Perspective: I was there in the late 90's and at that time the figures we were given by people in the government coincide roughly with the above numbers. I have been suprised to see other accounts, including Lonely Planet and the CIA world factbook quote Malays numbering only 50% and Chinese 30%. That would indicate to me that in the last 7-8 years the number of Malay's has decreased and the number of Chinese have increased substantially. It would also seem that the pupulation of Malaysia has grown a great deal since when I was there it was quoted as 18 million and now is reported to be 23 million. It would not be surprised if the Chinese population has grown disproportionately with Hong Kong reverted to Chinese control and fewer restrictions on Chinese emmigration. The economy of Malaysia continues to grow and the Chinese in Malaysia are among the most enterprising of its people in my experience. This is merely anecdotal and speculative information I offer. -M

References

I think this can potentially be a Featured Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article) but we need references, stuff like including the race porportion figures I mentioned above. Other than that, the malaysia article is well-written, uncontroversial and has lots of content. User: Borisblue

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Malaysia"