sorry, some typos in the previos post......
paragrapgh 7 in Scenario, 1st sentence: The above scenario is HIGHLY UNLIKELLY to happen in another industry, why?.. paragrapgh 8 in Scenario, 1st sentence: Firstly, no Malaysian can ever copy its design, it would be very secretive and.. On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Boh Yap <[email protected]> wrote: > hi, > > ..this is a long one, I have tried to logical but critical. .. > > Critique of the points in the Bill > ================================== > > After reading thru the contents of the bill, it seems to be thrown > together without deep thought or sufficient discussion. The objective of > setting up such a board seems to be primarily to register parties so that > they can be eligible to handle CNII Projects. The definition of CNII itself > is very vague and dubious. For this to stand up to scrutiny of law, the > definition has to be very clear, with precise definitions and exclusions, > with such a definition amounting to pages, not just ONE SENTENCE! And since > this bill hinges on the definition of NCII, and since this definition is > not clear, then this bill has little relevance! > > The justification for the Bill also display a lack of inputs from those > actually practicing n the industry. The fact is that the technology changes > so fast, and its adoption can be equally fast, and attempt to > certify/regulate it via conventional bureaucratic means is impractical, > either that or it will lead to stifling of knowledge and innovation, > leaving Malaysia's behind in the globally competitive field of IT! > Furthermore it will stifle innovation. This is mostly due the purely > IP-based nature of the industry, where ideas and knowledge are the real > capital, not goods, machinery and equipment (re: Scenario below) > > Lastly it is not quite clear what the role of the Board that is suppose to > be setup IS! Is it (just) going to be a registry for parties wanting to bid > for CNII jobs, or is it trying to be a professional body, like the MMA (for > doctors), Bar Council (for lawyers) etc... It seems like it is trying to be > a bit of both! > > As a professional body, the professionals that are involved should have > more say; ie: the Board should not be ALL APPOINTEES but rather IT > Professionals voted in by their peers. Its should also play a more > strategic and perhaps even operational role to improve the standards and > business opportunities of its members through business development > activities and interaction with other like professional bodies overseas. > > If its just a registry, there there is no need to set up a board, just let > a government department (MOSTI?) handle it, much like the registry for > bumiputra companies bidding for government projects handled by the > Treasury. Let the funds that would go towards supporting such a board be > put to actual use in encouraging innovation in IT (see 7. below) > > Scenario: fictitious but very possible > ------------------------------------- > Google invents a new programming language that leverages off it cloud > infrastructure, and this language makes it highly productive to develop new > applications that utilises very large databases. And they release this as > Open Source. > > Overnight, a Malaysian programmer with the interest and underlying skills, > can immediately download the software, access the documentation and start > learning and experimenting with it. Within 2 weeks, he has gained > sufficient proficiency with it and starts developing an application with > it. Within 2-3 months he may have a prototype application running, > demonstrating very viable and unique capabilities. > > Suddenly a CNII Project puts up a tender, say for Public Health, where his > project has relevance (a good example would be to develop a National > Database for every citizen's Health Record, such a project has been > suggested the 'Lifelong Health Record' but never actualised). This > programmer CANNOT participate because: > > i he personally may not be registered > ii the software that he uses and the skills he has developed > are not certifiable, its too NEW, and no one else in Malaysia has > the capability to do so. > > So he gives up in frustration, takes his application to Silicon Valley, > where investors welcome him with open arms, within 32 months his company > with 100 staff goes public... > > Here, the programmer has taken a new technology, further innovated on it > an created a new commercial product/service and it ended up overseas. > Malaysia suffers another hit from self-inflicted "Brain Drain". > > The above scenario is HIGHLY UNLIKELLY happen in another industry, why? > Lets use another story from the aspect of the mechanical engineering > industry, suppose someone somewhere invents a new type of internal > combustion engine, that is 3 times more economical than the standard > engine, such that a engine the size of a 2 shoeboxes can drive a standard > car! > > Firstly, no Malaysian can copy its design, it would be very secretive and > protected by many patents. In contrast, software has the concept of OPEN > SOURCE which is quite unique to the IT industry! > Even if one can obtain the rights to manufacture the engine, the cost of > building a manufacturing plant is huge, and you will still have to pay > royalties to the owner of the patents! > > Hence no local innovation or even benefit could be achieved. > > Hence there is strong argument for the IT industry to be handled > differently because the nature of skills, knowledge and ability changes so > fast as to make certification or attempts to qualify them difficult, > especially by those outside the industry! > > > Specific cretique on parts of the Bill > --------------------------------------- > (the numbers refer to sections of the Bill) > > 1. Part II, 4,2 > "...each member who shall be Malaysian citizens appointed by the > Minister..." > > Board are appointees, NOT elected! They may not be peer reviewed. > Who is the Board accountable to? > How transparent is the appointment and operations of the board? > (especially with the Secrecy clause below) > > > 2. Part 5, 1 & 2 > "Talks about the 'common seal' of the board, used to authenticate, > authorize documents issued b the board." > > This is somewhat feudal, and although legalities may require such a > seal, > why is a 'professional computing body' not using or promoting digital > signatures? > > How is our government and society to progress towards the digital age > if the Board itself does not lead by example? > > This points to a glaring weakness of te whole exercise, and show up > the deficiency in knowledge of the decision makers who are to guide/protect > us in the digital age. > > This begs the question; if the formulators of the Bill and those > practicing members of the Board are up to date with technology?! > > > 3. Part 7, 1 Revocation of appointment > ...the minister shall, at any time, revoke the appointment of any > member of the Board. > > The Minister/Government has total power... the board is subject to the > political wills of the Mister/Ministry/government. And registrees are > subject > to the Board! > > > 4. Part 11, 1 Functions and Power of the Board > "f) provide facilities for the promotion of learning and education and > to hold or cause to be held professional development programmes..." > > The Board decides on training and hence the technology direction of > the proffession? Will this be subjected to vested interests, ie: commercial > Vendors who cultivate a strong relationship with the Board, vs less > financially capable Open Source companies? > > There is no mention of liaison, cooperation with other similar bodies > in other countries; for the purpose of exchange of knowledge, ideas and > business opportunity. > > Aside from f), all of the other functions are bureaucratic and not > strategic or operational. > There is no mention of how it can assist in business/economic > development, such as by encouraging innovation to develop new markets. new > ecomies; or even on how to promote adoption of IT by business or government > sectors. In other words, the Board does nor seem very concerned about > business development for the professional body, an aspect that would be > important for other professional bodies. > > > g) "...to appoint a council consisting of persons to be determined by > the Board, to conduct examinations and/or assessments, or to cause > examinations and/or assessments to be conducted by an institution or > institutions recognized by the Board..." > > The Board conducts exams for the purpose of registration of potential > Members. Unless members of the board are qualified in all fields of > speciality, they may not be able to make decisions... e.g. which Open > Source certification to recognize? Why restrict, accept any internationally > recognized certification! > > ** field of expertise in IT is too wide! e.g. as a Python programmer, > who examines me, is he/she qualified to evaluate me, are there any > certification for Python? Does that then mean I cannot practice > professionally? or contribute on Government projects? > > > i) "...persons as may be determined by the Board to advise the > government and the public on matters relating to computing education, > including the certification of such programmes." > > Again, is the experience of said members representative of the > industry, and will it be swayed by commercial interests, slaes persons from > vendors being appointed... > > > 5. 34 Restriction on employment of unregistered person to provide > Computing Services. > "No CNII entities or person shall employ a person, sole > proprietorship, partnership or body corporate, other than a Registered > Computing Practitioner or Registered Computing Professional or Registered > Computing Services Provider practice, to perform Computing Services" > > This clause has very serious consequences! It allows the Board to then > act as Gate Keepers as to who can participate on major CNII projects! > > Also, it creates the complexity of interpreting what consists of a > CNNI Project, who has the authority to define/interprete it as such etc.. > > Furthermore, the status of registration versus the actual skill-set > and experience of an individual may have little correlation. > > 6. Obligation of Secrecy > 43, 1 > "no member of the Board or any of its committees or any employee or > agent of the Board or any person attending any meeting of the Board or any > of its committees, whether during or after his tenure of office or > employment, shall disclose any information obtained by him in the course of > his duties; and.." > > So where is the transparency and accountability of the Board? If I as > a professional, whose future is being determined by the Board, then it > > > 7. Funds > 45, > Goes on to explain the existence of the Fund, justifying its use: pay > allowances of its members, purchase & hire of equipment, etc... > > No where does it mention spending to promote and improve the use of > IT, to highlight, showcase and encourage the adoption of new technology, to > provide liaison between Computing bodies in other (more advanced countries) > to exchange ideas/knowledge and better improve standards of our IT > professionals... > > It looks like a (possibly fat?) fund will be used to provide > infrastructure and to maintain a bureaucrats, that would have little impact > on improving the standards and well-being of IT professionals. Those funds > could be better spent on existing programs via MOSTI, Cradle etc... that > would encourage innovation, creation of wealth/jobs and encourage adoption > of IT by all Malaysians. > > ICON-DAP, a program run by MDeC, to encourage innovation, software > application development and create new businesses has a budget of RM 6m. > The award package is up to RM 200k max, that means only about 30 applicants > will succeed in their application. > > If it costs 6m (I think this is very conservative) to run this Board > and its supporting entourage, would not that money be better spent in the > above program? > > > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Raja Iskandar Shah < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> saya sendiri setuju dgn pendapat en. ihsan. apa yg kita perlu buat ialah >> dapatkan seberapa detail penjelasan, >> >> kita perlukan kerjasama. mampu melalui oscc dah banyak bawa faedah dan >> impak. kalau takde oscc, takkan ada mygosscon. tak akan ada oss conference >> di malaysia ini. oscc sendiri adakan program certified training providers / >> oscc product partners. >> >> kita perlukan kerjasama supaya aktiviti komuniti tidak terhalang. >> installfest / penguin masuk kampung / hackfest / etc >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Ihsan Junaidi Ibrahim < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> The novel idea behind this bill is to enforce more accountability behind >>> any critical public infrastructure engagement which is what we as taxpayers >>> desperately need due to mostly opaque project management and layers of >>> accountability structure that we have now. >>> >>> Having said that I do agree that the present draft raises more questions >>> and issues that what it intend to solve. >>> >>> I believe the bill needs to balance the dynamics of technology industry, >>> encouraging innovation, promoting transparency and accountability. >>> >>> I don't necessarily agree with wholesale scraping of the bill but it is >>> critical to make fundamental changes to the content so that it reduces the >>> questions and eventually strenghten the stakeholders I.e. Public, industry, >>> enterpreneurship etc. >>> >>> I'm sure MOSTI has the resources to do this correctly with the >>> stakeholders being in the picture. >>> >>> ihsan >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Harisfazillah Jamel <[email protected]> >>> Sender: [email protected] >>> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 15:48:32 >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> Reply-To: [email protected] >>> Cc: Dunia DIgital<[email protected]>; <[email protected] >>> > >>> Subject: [osdcmy] MOSTI: Stop Computing Professionals Bill 2011 (CPB2011) >>> >>> >>> http://www.change.org/petitions/mosti-stop-computing-professionals-bill-2011-cpb2011 >>> >>> MOSTI: Stop Computing Professionals Bill 2011 (CPB2011) >>> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> I just signed the following petition addressed to: MOSTI. >>> >>> ---------------- >>> Stop Computing Professionals Bill 2011 (CPB2011) >>> >>> If this Bill becomes and Act, it will hamper the growth and innovation >>> that is coming from the ICT sector. It will increase the cost to all >>> spending in ICT and more importantly, it will encourage "uncertified" >>> ICT experts to look for better opportunities abroad and accelerating >>> the brain drain. >>> >>> Stop this bill and save the ICT sector of Malaysia. >>> >>> ---------------- >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> >>> http://www.change.org/petitions/mosti-stop-computing-professionals-bill-2011-cpb2011 >>> >>> Discuss about this here >>> >>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/osdcmalaysia/ >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from and detail about this group >>> http://portal.mosc.my/osdc-my-mailing-list-information >>> >>> OSDC.my Discussion Group In Facebook >>> http://www.facebook.com/groups/osdcmalaysia/ >>> >>> Malaysia Open Source Conference 2012 >>> MOSC2012 http://portal.mosc.my/ >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from and detail about this group >>> http://portal.mosc.my/osdc-my-mailing-list-information >>> >>> OSDC.my Discussion Group In Facebook >>> http://www.facebook.com/groups/osdcmalaysia/ >>> >>> Malaysia Open Source Conference 2012 >>> MOSC2012 http://portal.mosc.my/ >>> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from and detail about this group >> http://portal.mosc.my/osdc-my-mailing-list-information >> >> OSDC.my Discussion Group In Facebook >> http://www.facebook.com/groups/osdcmalaysia/ >> >> Malaysia Open Source Conference 2012 >> MOSC2012 http://portal.mosc.my/ >> > > > > -- > #------- > regds, > > Boh Heong, Yap > > -- #------- regds, Boh Heong, Yap -- To unsubscribe from and detail about this group http://portal.mosc.my/osdc-my-mailing-list-information OSDC.my Discussion Group In Facebook http://www.facebook.com/groups/osdcmalaysia/ Malaysia Open Source Conference 2012 MOSC2012 http://portal.mosc.my/
