I know you mean well for OSHCA Richard. I'm afraid you've got your
information all wrong with regards to Malaysia's Constitutional
Monarchy. You need to know history of Malaya (and now Malaysia with
Sabah and Sarawak) in order to understand the current socio-political
and legal systems here. It would be too lengthy and out of context for
me to explain everything here. However, let me try to allay the
perceived fears (similar to FUD in the open source environment) within
the context of OSHCA.
Except for Islam (not all other religions) and natural resources like
water and timber (have to ask the Brits why) all other matters are under
the jurisdiction of the Federal Government through a 5-year elected
parliamentary democracy that has a lower house (parliament) and upper
house which we call the Senate. The hereditory "rulers" called sultans
no longer rules but they perform the function (mainly ceremonial - open
parliament, receive credentials of foreign envoys, give dinners to
visiting heads of state etc) similar to the Queen of England's appointed
governor in Australia and Canada. After our independence we chose to get
rid of the Governor and instead get these sultans to choose amongst
themselves and rotate every 5-years to be "King" of Malaysia. Foreigners
are amused that we also practice democracy amongst our "hereditary
rulers". With this preamble, let me comment on your statements below....
Richard Schilling wrote:
>Wow.... after all that feedback I'm honestly trying to pick where to
>start on this one. I'm seeing some confusion here between legal aspects
>and the socio-political.
>
>Molly, I'm not implying that there's no legal protection in Malaysia.
>I'm saying, based on what I know there's less protection than in the
>U.S. Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy. All peninsular Malaysian
>states except two have hereditary rulers, which, for a company means
>that the laws governing corporations can be set along heridetary lines
>rather than an independent legal standard. Read: muslim, heridetary
>lines.
>
As I mentioned above, all acts of parliament are under the federal
government. The Constitution is the supreme law of the country. Laws
governing corporations are not set along hereditary lines.
>Is OSCHA a religious organization or an independent world-wide
>technological organization accessible to everyone regardless of
>religious conviction? (Tim, you're not making any sense with your "star
>and crescent" comment).
>
>
I think Tim was just being cheeky :).....
>And, what I'm suggesting is that you start with a U.S. incorporation.
>Then incorporate elsewhere. What is below is point/counter-point. And,
>it's not talking about suitability based on religion, "the people" or
>any other facet other than legal.
>
>
But why start of with a US incorporation? Past discussions clearly
indicate that the membership "do not" want a US dominated OSHCA.
>So, let me boil this down to simple terms:
>
>1. Legal protections: U.S. incorporation means that as a U.S. company,
>OSHCA has the same rights as an individual. Intellectual property
>rights and agreements are upheld. In other countries, especially ones
>with new regimes, this might not be the case. U.S. subsidiaries running
>in non-U.S. countries would work just fine and be stabilized by the U.S.
>based parent.
>
>
I don't agree that US incorporation offers more legal protection than
Malaysia which are also signatories to International Conventions and
legal frameworks and taking them seriously. Under the law OSHCA will be
a legal entity with rights to all provisions under the relevent acts.
Incidently Malaysia is not a new regime and we got our independence from
the British in 1957. Before that we were colonized by the Portugese,
then the Dutch and then the British.
Stabilized by US based parent? How so?
>2. Repatriation of capital: As OSCHA earns fees, receives donations,
>pays taxes, etc... it's much more straightforward in the U.S. I believe.
> The tax burden on a non-profit like OSHCA would be minimal or
>non-existent.
>
>
I plan to apply for tax-exempt status, in addition to the non-profit
status which will automatically be given. That means that donors to
OSHCA do not pay taxation on their donations to OSHCA and OSHCA does not
have to pay tax on the donations received. There is no control on the
repatriation of monies earned in Malaysia.
>3. Political stability: In politically less-stable countries (e.g.
>Malaysia, Taiwan, Mexico, South Africa, Haiti, etc..) when regimes
>change so does the law - you can find your corporation and all its
>assets suddenly owned by someone else.
>
>
I didn't know that Malaysia is politically unstable and I don't know of
any assets that had been suddenly owned by someone else. But I'm amazed
by your perceptions of Malaysia. I would be happy to play host and
invite you to come and see Malaysia.
>4. Government funding: incorporating in a country because "it looks like
>there's government funding" is a bad idea. You need a much harder offer
>than that. What are the incentive programs, specifically that the other
>government offers? Who, specifically in the government, is offering them?
>
>
I've not mentioned about Govt funding. I did say that it would be easier
to get funding for OSHCA activities from the likes of organisations like
UNDP, IDRC, CIDA, SIDA etc. Maybe I failed to "market" or "hard sell"
Malaysia for our purpose. As for incentive programmes and other Govt
offers, it is obvious that you are not aware of the Malaysian Govt's
Policy on Open Source, incentives related to ICT companies and projects.
There are too many to enumerate here. I did a google search on
Malaysia's incentives for ICT and they're all there. However, after all
these efforts I wonder if the members of OSHCA are capable to make a
difference to push the open source agenda in health care especially in
the developing world. I must quality that this is my main interest - the
developing world that needs help.
Molly
>
>Richard
>
>
>
>
>Molly Cheah wrote:
>
>
>>I was born in Malaysia and lived through the period where we obtained
>>independance from the British and from whom our legal framework was
>>adopted. Just wondering what are the concerns of Richard and David on
>>the legal protection for OSHCA. Can you elaborate rather than make a
>>comment that imply there isn't legal protection. Incidently we don't
>>have the equivalence of Guantanano Bay in Malaysia.
>>Molly
>>Joseph Dal Molin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Legal protection in the context of an organization like OSHCA is IMHO
>>>not a major concern. What is more important is how the countries laws
>>>influence governance.
>>>
>>>David Forslund wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't understand why this is good or even relevant. What should
>>>>matter is the legal protection
>>>>provided by the incorporation in the various countries participating,
>>>>which I think was Richard's point.
>>>>
>>>>Dave Forslund
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openhealth/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
