I’ve already mentioned some of this in my preliminary analysis. However, there are a few more things that I have missed out that I think need to be addressed.
Devil’s in the details.
Restrictions on Residence
18. (1) Except as otherwise provided under any other written law, no person or body, other than a Registered Computing Professional who is residing in Malaysia or a Registered Computing Services Provider providing Computing Services that are within the scope stipulated in section 2, shall be entitled to submit proposals, plans, designs, drawings, schemes, reports, studies or others to be determined by the Board to any person or authority in Malaysia.
Wow, this is protectionism ala Malaysia, reeling it’s ugly head again. Only RCP who are resident in Malaysia are allowed to submit documents. Companies acting as RCSP can only qualify if their staff are RCP who must be resident in Malaysia to qualify to submit documents. In other words, only RCP in Malaysia, period.
I don’t see how this could possibly benefit our country as a whole. If the CPB2011 is designed to control quality and to ensure standards, I don’t see why the issue of country of residence needs to be included. I can understand if certifications, training, etc are important but not country of residence.
It would also severely restrict our Malaysian experts. While they may very well qualify to be RCPs, they may not be normally resident in Malaysia due to the global nature of IT operations and they need to go where the work takes them. As a result, they will not be allowed to submit documents. This just punishes them for being successful.
This is just silly.
Restrictions on Employment
34. 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.
While I can understand that you only want people who are RCP to take responsibility for submitting documents, I don’t understand why it is that non-RCP cannot even be employed to do the work. This is just going to bite the CNII entities in the ass.
I can imagine this problem biting someone like TM in the ass. One would imagine that being a GLC controlling most of the telecommunications infrastructure within Malaysia, TM would be clearly marked as a CNII entity. If TM is not even allowed to employ a non-RCP to provide Computing Services, I can imagine their HR having a huge headache very soon.
This is particularly true if you consider the meaning of “Computing Services” as defined in the S.3 of the CPB2011:
“Computing Services” means services within the domain of Computing rendered by the scope of this Act;
“Computing” is a goal-oriented activity to plan, architect, design, create, develop, implement, use and manage information technology or information technology systems.
And there you have it – a CNII entity cannot even employ a non-RCP person to use an IT system. I think that the drafters of the bill may not have considered this in its entirety. While this will only affect the CNII entities, they are arguably, the largest employers of IT staff in the country – from banks, to government, telcos to hospitals.
I can understand that you want fully qualified people to plan, architect, design, create, develop, implement and manage the systems but it’s crazy to demand that RCP be the only ones who can use the system as well. Most computing systems are designed to be used by non-IT personnel.
Amazing law.
PS: Just realised that the CPB2011 encourages CNII entities (e.g. the government) to employ non-RCP people to use IT systems aimlessly i.e. without a goal!
Illegitimate Code 