From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Formatting and language conventions

For articles about Malaysia, please use the 12-hour clock to show times, e.g. 9AM-noon and 6PM-midnight.

Please show prices in this format: RM100 and not MYR 100, 100 ringgit or M$100.

Please use British spelling (colour, travelled, centre, realise, artefact, analogue, programme, defence).

Phone numbers should be formatted as +60-X-XXXX XXXX.


There is a Malaria page, unless it got deleted. I noted it before and thought it should be discussed-- what do we do with health issues? They should be discussed, but in how much detail and in what format? Before I go any futher, I'll take this to the Malaria talk page... (WT-en) Majnoona 10:52, 29 Apr 2004 (EDT)


How about Malacca and Kota Bharu as Destination cities? I don't know what slogans to use for them, but I think they belong. Malacca, abode of history? Kota Bharu, gem of the Northeast?

09:30, 5 July 2005 (UTC)

Anything you like boss... but we don't have to list every city in the main page, places like Kota Bharu are hardly tourist attractions (or "gems"). (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:10, 5 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Well, is Taiping really a pensioners' paradise? I've never been there, but then I'm not a pensioner, nor are most tourists, and there are probably things about that city that would appeal to younger visitors. I happen to like Kota Bharu and think that it belongs because it's very different from every other city in Malaysia. The appeal for visitors is its uniqueness, in culture, food, architecture, dialect, etc. You might not find the pasars there a big deal, for example, but that doesn't mean other tourists wouldn't. But in any case, I'm just throwing out the idea to someone who might want to write the article. I'd do it, but I'm not enough of an expert. If you aren't interested, no problem.

Michael 09:43, 6 July 2005 (UTC)

None of us are "experts", we're all just Wikivoyagers. Plunge forward and edit, if somebody doesn't like your edits they'll edit them again, and eventually it'll settle down to a happy compromise.
Also, smaller towns can be listed on regional pages, eg. you'll find Kota Bharu under East Coast (Malaysia). And if you can enter what you found interesting about KB by all means add it in, then I'll know what to look for the next time I pass through (which, from the looks of it, will be about 1.5 weeks from now). (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:12, 6 Jul 2005 (EDT)

This message was triggered off by what Jpatokal said in the Central (Malaysia) discussion page. I agree that decribing a region in Peninsular Malaysia as "Central" is odd. As a Malaysian, I have never heard of this being used. The usual references to regions in Malaysia are "East Coast" to cover Kelantan, Terengganu and Pahang and "West Coast" for Perlis, Kedah, Penang, Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Malacca and even Johor. Johor of course has both a west and east coast, so it may not fit the "West Coast" classification so well. Can I rename and regroup the regions of Peninsular Malaysia into "West Coast" for Perlis down to Negeri Sembilan, "East Coast" for Kelantan, Terengganu and Pahang, and "South" for Malacca and Johor.(WT-en) Slleong 10:06, 10 Feb 2006 (EST)

Why is it not accepted that Kuala Kubu Bharu is a city? I looked up the definition of a city. KKB fits in perfectly. KKB is head district of Hulu Selangor, has a church, more than 2 chinese temples and a Mosque (please see cambridge definition of a city). Futhermore it is place of commerce, business and residence. The size is larger than a town because of facilities and infrastructure. Recently added train station, a bus station, schools, district councel (YDP is currently in office in KKB), hospital and of course market, residential zones, business and commercial centre and the rest. It also has an indipendent history, unique and not sub-dipendent on cities in the vicinity like KL. Please give me some reasons why this is not accepted... —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) (talkcontribs)

Of course it's a city, but you're not reading the page, which says "Only cities of primary importance to tourists here, maximum 9". We already have nine listed, and you'll have a hard time arguing that KKB is more important to tourists than (say) Malacca. The correct place to link in KKB is Selangor state, and it's already listed there. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:52, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Thank you for the response. I got your point. I understand now that it needs to be top 9 (and that was my problem). I cannot argue over Malacca that’s for sure! But I can certainly argue over IPOH (or some of the other destinations!). KKB has just recently entered the tourism world. Not because there were no tourists coming to KKB a few years back but because of it being primarily a LOCAL tourism destination. The problem was transportation and geographical. It was not well connected to Kuala Lumpur and the only way (or almost the only way) to visit KKB was using your own car. Everything changed in 2008. The KTM opened to KKB and the influx of tourists grew exponentially. KKB has a huge tourist per capita ratio even without counting the new KTM line which draws in more FOREIGN tourism. KKB is one of the best rafting and hiking destinations worldwide. More than 3 rafting companies are operating here in the surroundings. Bukit Kutu trail has been recently upgraded and reopened. The construction of the dam (recently completed) and it’s tourist information center have drawn in a large number of visitors together with the newly formed aborigine village of Pertak. Traditionally KKB’s local tourists came for golf (18hole golf course) . The night markets which draws an amazing number of local (and now overseas) tourists. It is also a pass by point for Frasier’s Hills and Genting. Many tourists stop over KKB for the food, shopping (KKB is very reasonably priced) and nature walks. New accommodations have opened up in the town itself and a tourist information centre is in the making. There are many more recent developments which are putting KKB on the MAP. I argue that population per tourist ratio KKB is way ahead of IPOH although does lack behind Malaka which is a well establish tourist destination for local and foreign tourists or Johor Bharu which is very strong in tourist influx from Singapore (for shopping mainly). —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) (talkcontribs)

If it's a rafting and hiking destination, then maybe you can put it under "Other" — but why is there no rafting info on the KKB page? (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:47, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Sorry but KKB seams to be one of the best kept secrets of malaysia!!!! I will update in the following month more information on KKB. For your refrence these are the rafting companies I mentioned: Pierose Swiftwater ( , Tracks ( and Khersonese Expedition ( All of which are rafting, trekking, outdoor adventure companies that operate on rivers going to the dam. But KKB is not only this. I will update the KKB page as soon as possible. But please I would like to understand why you see Ipoh as a more important tourist destination than KKB. I cannot find a good reason except for city size (which I don't think constitutes a reasonable criteria or else the number of tourists going to Kuantan or Kuala Terengganu would be much higher than Putrajaya but they are not on the list). (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:56, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Objections: 1) research engines do not only look for tourism related topics 2) this does not show that one city is more important than another in a certain field Consensus: I do understand the point that the more a city is talked about the more it should be good for tourism. Obviously this also has to do with the population problem I was explaining earlier. Surely KKB has no entries for industry or medical research but most of the listings probably do have something to do with tourism while Ipoh being a much more “complex” city obviously has a much smaller percentage related to tourism. Another point is the population. Let’s take this counter example: As you can clearly see Shenzhen is of ratio 1 to 8 with Guilin. Notice Shenzhen is not in the destination cities in China but Guilin is ( To further analyize the matter, consider the population difference between the Malaysia and Chinese example: Malaysian Population 746.300 Ipoh google hits 3.780.000 Population 5.000 Kuala Kubu Bharu google hits 212.000 Chinese Population 4.000.000 shenzhen google hits 22.000.000 Population 1.340.000 guilin google hits 2.710.000 Simple, if you do the math and take into consideration population/google hits ratio without even considering my other argument than KKB Should be placed on destinations. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:06, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Hello, I am the "KKB GUY". Sorry for my lack of form. I just signed up and I have a new account. Sorry to see that you do not have any argumentation and can only send me links. Maybe Wikipedia should just rely on google as a form of ultimate knowledge and information. I have hence decided to delete Ipoh and substitute it with KKB. If you give me sufficient argumentation to support the contrary I will put KKB under others as has been suggested. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Lorenzoitaly (talkcontribs)

Thank you! Now we can have a civilized conversation. So, as should have been completely and totally obvious from the links above, Ipoh is a major tourism destination (100,000+ Google hits) while KKB is a very, very minor one (under 5000 hits, and most of those talk about Fraser's Hill). As you can see from Project:Country article template, the Cities section is reserved for prominent cities, but KKB is, as you said, "Malaysia's best kept secret" because it's not prominent.
I've already offered a compromise: stick KKB under "Other destinations". Are you OK with this? (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:36, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Very Well, I agree that not enough information on KKB has been put into the web (a true pity). Let's put it under "Other destinations" using the description I presented, but in 6 months time let's revise it if information on the web has increased or if I present further evidence (for instance KKB is applying for UNESCO as world heritage site) than you will try to reconsider. Do you agree?

Sure -- we work on Project:Consensus here. I think your description is quite boring though: a "garden city" sounds like a suburb, and isn't that Putrajaya's slogan anyway? (WT-en) Jpatokal 20:01, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Region vfd discussions[edit]

North (Malaysia)[edit]

  • Delete. Merged into the more commonly known West_Coast_(Malaysia) which extends from north to south.(WT-en) Slleong 05:39, 9 March 2006 (EST)
  • Keep & redirect to West_Coast_(Malaysia) Changed my mind - instead:
  • Keep & disambiguate (which I've just done, incorporating state lists/links).
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 15:31, 14 March 2006 (EST)
  • What do people think of such quasi-disambiguations, i.e. where you disambiguate not because of repeated name, but because the region covers other regions? I myself am in favour, having done so for North (India) after I split it into two regions. But it is not covered under policy — (WT-en) Ravikiran 01:10, 25 March 2006 (EST)
    • My personal preference would be to come up with a clear set of regions and stick to them, and only set up redirects and disambiguations when there are common region names in use that differ from what Wikivoyage uses. In this case I don't think "North Malaysia" would be a common enough term that we need an article for it. -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:00, 25 March 2006 (EST)
    • Good. So North India stays and this goes — (WT-en) Ravikiran 00:00, 26 March 2006 (EST)
      • Is the edit history worth considering when thinking about how common usage of such a term might be? Neither North (Malaysia) nor Central (Malaysia) started out as disambiguations - the origins of both seem to be pretty much identical to North (India) except that instead of a single region being subdivided, the entire region was re-divided. 05:55, 27 March 2006 (EST)

Central (Malaysia)[edit]

  • Delete. Even more unheard of than the above, also merged contents into West_Coast_(Malaysia).(WT-en) Slleong 05:39, 9 March 2006 (EST)
  • Keep - was converted to a disambiguation yesterday Keep if keeping North (Malaysia) - otherwise delete. 06:05, 27 March 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 15:31, 14 March 2006 (EST)
  • What do people think of such quasi-disambiguations, i.e. where you disambiguate not because of repeated name, but because the region covers other regions? I myself am in favour, having done so for North (India) after I split it into two regions. But it is not covered under policy — (WT-en) Ravikiran 01:10, 25 March 2006 (EST)
    • See comments above. -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:00, 25 March 2006 (EST)


I disagree with the revised population statistics. The official 2004 stats are Malay 50.8%, Chinese 23.8%, Indigenous 10.9%, Indian 7.1%, non-Malaysian citizens 6.8 %, others 0.6%. (WT-en) Greenmango 01:34, 4 October 2006 (EDT)

Stay safe[edit]

WARNING: Indonesians (they look like Malays) around Kuala Lumpur cheat tourists frequently by selling fake products (like Rolex, etc.). STAY AWAY FROM THESE CHEATERS. THEY WILL FOLLOW YOU. Also, be careful with taxi drivers because some charge an unusually high fees when it comes to foreigners.

that part is racist and not appropriate

National Parks[edit]

Can you list the 3 mouuntains taller than Gng Kinabalu/ (WT-en) Greenmango 21:23, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Taxi in Malaysia[edit]

In Kuala Lumpur, may I ask, is it possible to have five passengers in a taxi? Will they allow? The three passengers are 16 years old and below.

-In KL (as the locals call it), they'll let you stuff as many people as you want into a cab.

The limit is 4, and most taxi drivers are quite strict about that now. (WT-en) Greenmango 21:50, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

about the "technically" part regarding to the criminality of homosexuality in Malaysia[edit]

When I mentioned that homosexuality is illegal due to strong influence of Islam in Malaysia, someone else placed the word "technically" in the comment which ends up being "homosexuality is technically illegal." I thought homosexuality IS illegal due to strong influence of Islam. Can anyone fully explain this? --(WT-en) Dark Paladin X 19:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

Things are "technically illegal" when they're illegal but the law is not enforced, which is usually the case in Malaysia. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:52, 10 May 2009 (EDT)
Oh, so that's what you mean by technically illegal. At least it's good advice to gays and lesbians to avoid public displays of affections here.--(WT-en) Dark Paladin X 09:48, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
I think you should explain to Anwar Ibrahim that he only "technically" spent six years in gaol for sodomy.
One must also consider the Syariah court systems in each of the 13 states if one is a Muslim.
Consequently I have made these edits
I do not speak fluent Arabic or Malay, but this authoritative site [1] writes:

(typographical errors corrected by me) In the field of criminal law in particular, the jurisdiction of the Shariah Courts is very limited. It has jurisdiction only over persons professing the religion of Islam and it has only such jurisdiction in respect of offences as is conferred by Federal law. Until 1984, the Muslim Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, 1965 had provided that such jurisdiction should not be exercised in respect of any offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or any fine exceeding $1,000.00 or with both. The Act was amended in 1984 and the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court has been extended by giving them jurisdiction to deal with cases punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or a fine up to $5,000.00 or whipping up to six strokes or the combination of all these. The Criminal jurisdiction of the Shariah Courts is therefore less than that of the First Class Magistrate which can generally try offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed ten years imprisonment.

The subordinate position given to the Shariah Courts is also shown by the fact that in many cases their decisions could be overridden by the decisions of the civil courts. The Selangor Administration of Muslim Law Enactment, 1952, provided after setting out the jurisdiction of the Courts of the Kathi Besar and the Kathi, that "Nothing in this Enactment contained shall effect the jurisdiction of any civil courts and in the event of any difference or conflict between the decision of a courts of Kathi Besar or a kathi and the decision of a civil court acting within its jurisdiction, the decision of the Civil Court sh 11 prevail." Indeed there were many cases reported which show that the decision of the civil courts would prevail over the decision of the Shariah Court and the rulings of the Mufti, the highest Muslim legal officer.

The unsatisfactory position of the Shariah Courts and its judges and officers led the Government to form a Committee under the Chairmanship of the late Tan Sri Syed Nasir Ismail to look into the position and suggest measures to be taken to raise their status and position. The Committee in its report recommended that (a) the Shariah Courts should be separated from the Council of Muslim Religion in the States and be independent of it (b) steps be taken to improve the training and recruitment of Shariah judicial and legal officers and (c) steps be taken to improve the facilities in the Shariah Courts, especially in regard to court buildings, supporting staff and facilities. The recommendations of the Committee were in general accepted by the Government and steps taken to implement them.

The most significant change has been made by the enactment of the amendment to Article 121 of the Federal Constitution which has modified the provision that the judicial power of the Federation shall be vested only in the civil courts and has also provided that the High Courts and courts subordinate to it shall have no jurisdiction in any matter which comes within the jurisdiction of the Shariah Courts. It may be noted that, with the establishment of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan, the Shariah Courts have become federal courts for these territories.

Administrative measures have also been taken to separate the Shariah Courts from the Council of Muslim Religion. The judicial officers of the Shariah Court have been placed in the professional group and most states now provide adequate buildings, staff and facilities for the Shariah Court. With the assistance of the Public Service Department, a one-year in service diploma course has been instituted in the International Islamic University to provide professional training to the serving officers of the Shariah Courts. This has since been extended to fresh graduates from the universities who are required to undergo a two year professional programme. In this way the professional competence of the officers of the Shariah Court has been enhanced, so as to make them better able to carry out their duties in the Shariah Courts.

In the past the only legislation on the administration of the Muslim Law in the States was the Administration of Muslim Law enactment. This dealt, among other things with the constitution and powers of the Council of Muslim Religion, the Mufti and the power to issue fatwa or rulings on Muslim Law, the law relating to Muslim marriage and divorce, wakafs and baitulmal and the Shariah Courts. The provisions were very limited in their scope and in particular the law relating to the procedure and evidence to be applied in the Shariah Courts was inadequate and required reference to the civil law applicable in the civil courts. There was a need to have a new laws to deal with the administration of the Islamic Family Law and the jurisdiction, powers and evidence and procedure applicable in the Shariah Courts in detail.

Before 1984 each State had its own legislation on the administration of the family law. There was a need to have a uniform law in this matter and a Committee headed by Tengku Zaid from the Attorney-General's Chambers was appointed to prepare a model enactment. This model code was later agreed to by the Conference of Rulers and after that referred to the various States for enactment of the legislation. Unfortunately the hope to have a uniform Islamic family law in this way was not achieved as some states, particularly Kelantan, Kedah and Malacca, made significant changes to the draft. In addition to the problem of lack of uniformity in the laws applied in the various states there was also the problem of conflicts between the civil law and the Shariah Law. It was necessary therefore, that steps should be taken to suggest measures to reconcile and have uniformity in the Islamic Family Law applicable in the various states and to improve and strengthen the administration of the law in the Shariah Courts. In addition there was a need to examine the existing legislation, both Federal and States, and suggest the removal of those provisions which are found to be in conflict with the Islamic law.

At present the most important jurisdiction of the Shariah Courts is in relation to the family law of the Muslims. in this respect, an effort had been made earlier to have a uniform law for the various States in Malaysia but unfortunately this has not succeeded. One of the first tasks of the authorities was therefore to study the various Islamic family laws and to recommend various amendments to bring them closer to one another. The two most important enactments were those enacted in Kelantan and in the Federal Territory and therefore amendments were suggested to the Kelantan and Federal Territory laws for adoption by them and the other states which followed one or other of them. A comprehensive table of amendments was prepared for each state or territory and these were discussed with the relevant authorities in the States or territory. Alhamdulillah many States have accepted the suggested amendments and it is hoped that in time the Islamic family Law administered in Malaysia will be more uniform. Those states who have not yet enacted the Islamic Family legislation have been encouraged and assisted to enact them. In addition to bringing the laws nearer to one another, amendments have also been suggested to ensure that the civil courts will not continue to exercise jurisdiction in such matters as breach of promise of marriage, custody of children and the division of the harta sepencarian or jointly acquired property. -- Alice 01:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Regions, Cities and Other Destinations[edit]

After Peter completed his excellent map, I noticed that Labuan is being treated as a separate top level region. Frankly, that makes no sense whatsoever. It is tiny and insignificant for the traveller. The Federal Territories in Peninsular Malaysia are treated as part of West Coast, and I strongly think therefore that Labuan should be treated as part of Sabah. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:57, 1 January 2010 (EST)

Also there are 10 cities listed. I suggest losing Putrajaya. And 21 other destinations!? Severe culling required. My suggested list of 9 is:
  • Langkawi
  • Penang
  • Perhentian Islands
  • Tioman Island
  • Taman Negara National Park
  • Kinabalu National Park
  • Cameron Highlands
  • Fraser's Hill
  • Either Kubah National Park or Redang --(WT-en) Burmesedays 13:08, 1 January 2010 (EST)
Ah, I wish that I had seen this earlier—it would have made the map much easier to tackle! I'll defer to others re: cities & od lists, but I definitely agree that Labuan would be better off lumped in with Sabah. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:14, 1 January 2010 (EST)
I could see you had struggled a bit with all those place labels which is why I checked the OD list!--(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:57, 3 January 2010 (EST)
Two weeks and no interest in this, so I will go ahead with my proposals. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:03, 13 January 2010 (EST)

I think we should get rid of "Peninsular Malaysia" and "East Malaysia" as we already use the levels below them as top-level regions. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:04, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

On the face of it, I would tend to disagree, as those designations are so standard and geography-based in Malaysia. Why can't they coexist with the various states as top-level regions? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 06:23, 18 July 2010 (EDT)
Because now we have two top-level regions at the same time. I did not mean to get rid of the wording of "Peninsular Malaysia" and "East Malaysia", just to get rid of them boasting an article of their own. I mean it a bit like this:


--(WT-en) globe-trotter 08:02, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

Got it. No objection.
One aside: I wonder about "South" as a designation, though. I know that Johor has both west and east coasts, but the east coast is the least developed part of Johor, still, isn't it? I would classify Johor as a West Coast state. But I don't have a strong opinion about that. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 08:34, 18 July 2010 (EDT)
I think Johor has been placed as "South" or "South Coast", because its obviously touching both coasts. I'm fine with that the way it is now, otherwise it might create confusion. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 16:30, 18 July 2010 (EDT)
I do agree that its a bit odd to have just Johor separately, as the Southern region also includes Melaka and some other areas. Grouping it with the West Coast I think is more logical. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 15:32, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
We could also use the six regions [2] of Malaysia. It'd avoid this huge West Coast region which has so much to do, and Malacca (state) would be in the Southern Region. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 03:38, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
What this amounts to is dividing up the West Coast while ignoring the fact that Kelantan is also a "northern" state. I find it slightly strange but could understand the reason for it, pragmatically. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 04:33, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
It's a tricky one this. The most interesting bits of Peninsular Malaysia for many travelers are in the North and on the East Coast. Johor is relatively uninspiring and makes sense as one travel region.
Many travelers though would think of Kelantan, Perak, Kedah, Penang and Perlis in the same breath (as "the North"), and we have Kelantan in a different region.
Pahang could probably stand alone as a travel region, or be grouped with Terengganu.
Selangor, the Federal Territories (Wilayah Persekutuan) of KL, Putrajaya and any other ghastly forced towns that the govt is creating (I think there's one called "Cyberjaya"), NS and Melaka definitely belong together.
I am wondering whether four regions along those lines would work - North, Pahang and Terengganu, West Coast and Johor (no need to call it the South - it's just Johor)? --(WT-en) burmesedays 05:00, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Quick thought: Kelantan and Terengganu are culturally similar (and certainly more similar than Kelantan is with any other state), so I would tend to group them together, though it could also make sense to group Terengganu with Pahang - and, therefore, all three states together. In spite of good cross-country highways, I think the East Coast/West Coast dichotomy is still the most important one in the Peninsula, for cultural, demographic, and historical reasons. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 10:06, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Yes I think the east-west distinction is certainly important. However, I think that Johor then could better be dealt with as a western state instead of a separate southern one. That would make a large western region though.. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 04:50, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Indeed. One question I have is, if we divide up the West Coast into subregions, where does Negeri Sembilan belong: With Selangor or with Melaka? I'm not sure; it is in some ways sui generis, in that it is so heavily Minangkabau and has a unique history, as exemplified by its name (Negeri Sembilan = Nine States, the number of different kingdoms that unified into one but still have real distinctions as different districts [daerah]).
One clue to where it should be placed may be to consider some of the history, as retold in [Wikipedia:Negeri Sembilan], which might indicate the state should be grouped with Melaka and Johor:

"The Minangkabaus from Sumatra settled in Negeri Sembilan in the 15th century under the protection of the Malacca Sultanate, and later under the protection of its successor, the Sultanate of Johor." (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 00:03, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

Passport reader[edit]

In the old immigration/customs building for those exiting Singapore and entering Malaysia, there is the option for holders of Malaysian passports to use a passport machine instead of going through a counter manned by staff. Does anyone know what info is read by the machine? Does it read visa stamps? 09:28, 5 April 2011 (EDT) It reads chips in the passport. JadeDragon (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Get In[edit]

I wish to add a reminder note for people regarding the newly introduced finger printing at malaysian entry points. This will serve to plan their schedules especially when having onward connecting itineraries. But I'm not sure if all of the checkpoints have the finger printing. Fellow travellers, please advise.

Malaysian ringgit[edit]

There are currently a variety of currency styles in use in our Malaysian articles, eg: RM34, 34 ringgit, RM 34, ringgit 34, MYR34, etc.

Since its official abbreviation is RM (Ringgit Malaysia in the local language), in 7 days I propose adding

"RM100 in Kuala Lumpur, not Ringgit 100, 100 RM, MYR 100 or RM 100 (with a space before the amount)"

to$#Currency_symbols unless someone gives cogent reasons at why this would be inappropriate. -- Alice 23:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Upgrade to usable status?[edit]

I believe the Malaysia article meets all the criteria of usable country status, but it is classified as an outline. What am I missing? Jnich99 (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the Penang article is linked in "Other destinations" and itself cannot yet be Usable because it's a regional (state) article and not all the linked destinations are Usable. But it's probably a mistake to link a state-level article in "Other destinations." All the city articles on the list of 9 and all the other "Other destinations" articles are rated as Usable or better.
Also, I don't understand the last sentence of the Wikivoyage:Country guide status#Usable:
At least the most prominent attraction is identified with directions.
And we want directions to an attraction in a country-level article because? It seems like it would be good to delete that sentence from Wikivoyage:Country guide status.Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I posted to that effect at Wikivoyage talk:Country guide status. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, for region articles to be "usable" not all destinations need to be usable, so I think both Penang and Malaysia meet the criteria. From a traveller's perspective, it does make sense to link Penang, I guess, as it is often viewed and discussed as a destination. It's not that uncommon either. The Penang article holds more than usable information for 95% of travellers, so I upgraded it to usable and did the same to the Malaysia article. Excellent work has been done on this region :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense for a state to be listed as an "Other destination". "Other destinations" could include islands, but really, Penang Island? That would be like listing Manhattan as an "Other destination" in the United States article. We need a different 9th "Other destination", and it has to be at least at Usable level for this article to be Usable. Right now, I think you're right that it is, precisely because all 9 cities and all 9 "other destinations" are at least Usable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I have no strong opinions on this and I do get your point. I just meant that when I travelled to Malaysia last year, I found that "Penang" is in general conversations often treated as a destination. If you take a LP guide for Malaysia, "Penang" will be included in the highlights. Our article structure works somewhat differently, and I can understand why someone would include "Penang" in the other destinations. That doesn't mean that better ideas can't be discussed, though. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
A brief remark about highlights sounds like a good idea. We sort of have that in "See", and perhaps Penang should be moved further up in the section. Or is there another section further up in the article that might be a better place for this? What do you think? I'm tending toward suggesting an edit to "See" because I don't want too much duplication in the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any pressing need to remove Penang island from the other destinations unless there's a better option, but sure, the See-section is the main place. The introduction is another option (see e.g. the USA article). JuliasTravels (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
If you're feeling inspired, please work on this. I think we could help our readers by having more such summaries in more articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
And about "Other destinations": We could easily add Sipadan and probably should, if it really has some of the best scuba diving in the world. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Block of tout's website[edit]

A certain tout has been very persistent recently. I created Special:AbuseFilter/27 since it is hard to get around posting that URL each time. Let me know if this is an excessive response. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Spinoff Article on Food.[edit]

I've noticed that we have separate articles for some different cuisines, such as Japanese, Chinese, Indian and Russian cuisine. I was wondering if we should create a separate article covering the cuisine of Malaysia and Singapore (and maybe Brunei?) since both countries have a shared culinary tradition, having such an article means that we can shorten the main Malaysia and Singapore articles, and do more justice to the cuisine within the standalone articles. This will also allow us to go into more detail about regional variations in Malaysian cuisine (for instance, I used to travel to Penang fairly regularly since you can't find some of those dishes in Johor). In addition, I think it would be fine to lump Singaporean and Malaysian cuisine together since for practical purposes, Singaporean cuisine can be considered a regional variant of Malaysian cuisine (unlike say, Thai or Vietnamese cuisine, which are completely distinct). The dog2 (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the cuisine articles are a bit questionable, to the extent they are shorter versions of what's on Wikipedia, so while I think your idea is fine, let's try to keep it very travel-focused by recommending particular places to get x, y and z dishes, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment on the cuisine articles. I'm not sure where is a good place to start a discussion about how to reformat the cuisine articles in general, but I think the focus should be on describing the regional variations in cuisine. Of course, we can dedicate a part to describing national dishes that are available more or less everywhere throughout the country, but how such articles can be useful for travellers is by describing where to get specific types of food. For instance, if you want to get chicken rice, southern Malaysia (Johor, Malacca) and Singapore are best for that, but if you want assam laksa, you have a head to Penang for that. And even in the case of things available nationally like nasi kandar, Penang is where it originated from, and most Malaysians will tell you that Penang is the place to go for the best nasi kandar. The dog2 (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
And speaking of which, we haven't even mentioned anything about Eurasian cuisine in either the Malaysia or Singapore articles. It is most certainly something that is distinct from Peranakan, Malay, Chinese or Indian cuisine. They have dishes like devil's curry, sugee cake or Eurasian shepherd's pie that you really can't find outside the region. The dog2 (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Malaysian Eurasian cuisine, maybe partly because I spent the majority of my time there in Terengganu. You know a lot about this cuisine and where to best get it, so by all means, start the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't actually know it well. I just went to a Eurasian restaurant in Singapore once. But those are some of their signature dishes. I know you can find them at the Portuguese Settlement in Malacca too, but I never tried it there. I'll create the article when I have a bit more time, perhaps during the weekend or something. I've never been to Terengganu though (the furthest up the east coast I've been to is Mersing), so maybe you can contribute your knowledge about Terengganu food. The dog2 (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I meant that you know Malaysia/Singapore cuisine well. Terengganu#Eat has a little content, as does Kuala Terengganu#Eat. And then for Kelantanese food, there's Kota Bharu#Eat and Kelantan#Eat. It will be good to put that information in one place. Any article on Malaysian food needs to emphasize fresh fruits - vegetables, too, but especially fruits. I love Malaysian cuisine, but the fresh fruits are one of the best things about eating in Malaysia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Side point on satay[edit]

The most common kinds of satay are what? I'd say chicken and goat, but the article says chicken and beef. Is that currently accurate? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd say it's chicken, mutton and beef, at least if you're talking about authentic Malay satay. If you go to a Chinese-run satay stall, sometimes they use pork too, which is obviously not halal. The dog2 (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
To most English-speakers, "mutton" means the meat of adult sheep. I think you actually mean goat, don't you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I guess traditionally, it would be goat since sheep are not native to the region, but it would be halal even if you use sheep, provided it is slaughtered the proper way. I guess a confusion can arise because there are no separate words for goat and sheep in many Asian languages. I know for sure Chinese doesn't, and I believe Malay doesn't either. The dog2 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
It does. Goat is kambing and sheep is kambing biri-biri. Using "mutton" instead of "goat" will confuse everyone who doesn't know that "mutton" in Malaysian/Singapore English means "goat". Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I guess in Chinese, you can use 綿羊 to refer to sheep, and 山羊 to refer to goat, but quite often, we just use 羊, which can either mean sheep or goat. So 羊肉 can either mean sheep meat or goat meat. Likewise, in Singaporean (and I presume Malaysian) English, both sheep meat and goat meat are called mutton. The dog2 (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Where to include information about Malaysian curries[edit]

I'd like to include this, but I don't know whether it's specifically Malay and belongs in the subsection on Malay cuisine, or whether it's more generically Malaysian and belongs elsewhere:

  • Gulai and "kari" are the generic Malay words for "curry". Malay curries are made with a base of coconut milk (not yogurt, as in Northern Indian cuisine) and typically use a rempah (spice mixture) that includes turmeric, shallots, garlic, shrimp paste and dried or fresh chilis. Malaysian tamarind is also frequently used, and if the taste of tamarind is particularly pronounced, it may be called a "kari asam" dish. Curries can feature fish (ikan), chicken (ayam), goat (kambing), shrimp (udang), vegetables, etc.

We also need to cover asam dishes and sayur (not generic vegetables: the dish, usually a side dish, of certain kinds of vegetables boiled in coconut milk with fresh chilis). Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Sayur is most certainly Malay food. I'm not sure if asam is purely Malay though, as if you go to Penang, Asam Laksa is typically sold by a Chinese and not a Malay. And down in Singapore, we like to put asam in our fish head curry too. @Chongkian:: Based on the articles you are active in, you seem very knowledgeable about Malaysia, so what are your thoughts on this? The dog2 (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if there should be a section on Malaysian food that spans ethnicities ("races", in Malaysian terms). Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata items for dynamic map[edit]

To the right is the map with all Wikidata items for the states of Malaysia. This should simplify the work in case we want to change the district set-up in the future. The tool Wikidata Extractor has been used to create the mapshapes.--Renek78 (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Gigantic urban slums[edit]

However, you will not find extreme rural poverty or gigantic urban slums as in other places in Southeast Asia

I haven't been to Malaysia since 2003, so I'd like an update on whether the shantytown neighborhood near Brickfields, Kuala Lumpur is still there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I haven't visited Kuala Lumpur since 2010, and I didn't visit Brickfields, but in general, compared to when I visited Bangkok two years ago, it appears that the poverty in Kuala Lumpur is not as bad as what you get in Bangkok. As for rural poverty, I encountered some of it in fishing villages in Penang state on the mainland side, but nothing like the crippling poverty I encountered in rural Myanmar. When you travel to rural Myanmar, local vendors will swarm you trying to get you to buy souvenirs from them, while in Malaysia, they generally just stay in their shops and leave you alone unless you approach them to buy something. In fact, it is pretty obvious that Malaysia is not as reliant on tourist dollars as Myanmar, Vietnam or Thailand, as you find much fewer shops catering exclusively to tourists.
@Chongkian: Do you by any chance know anything about this? The dog2 (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I visited Brickfield about a few months ago, and it was no where near 'typical' Southeast Asia slump area. It is probably more similar like the old town during the European colonial period, but not was nowhere near 'dirty' or unorganized. There were no beggars or people sleeping on the street. So I dont think Brickfields can be categorized as one (slum). Chongkian (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
It sounds like KL is doing better than New York, nowadays! I couldn't say there are no beggars or people sleeping on the street in the East Village! Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The KL LRT is more pleasant to use than the NYC Subway. I will testify to that. The dog2 (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Of course it is! It's way newer and not as crowded! Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"restricted to enter"[edit]

This is in the warningbox. I don't recognize this phrase as English, because at least as I understand my native tongue, a person can't be restricted to do something, rather than restricted to, for example, a particular area. Does it mean forbidden to enter or subjected to restrictions that prohibit entry except on x or y condition? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek:I will think not allowed to enter will be good. The only exceptions seems to be goods trucks going to Singapore are allowed back to Malaysia?--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, so let's mention that. If there are other exceptions someone knows about, they can be added. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
For now, I just used the phrase "tourists are not allowed to enter", but what about business travelers (not truckers but someone arriving to try to make deals or whatever)? Are foreigners just plain barred from entry, period, unless they're driving a truck? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek:From whag I hear here in Singapore, it is a blanket ban. You will be a better position for exceptions, I know the goods trucks as our Singapore media reported it. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not in a better position. I'm a New Yorker and haven't been to Malaysia since 2003. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
My best attempt. Anyone who has more exact information should please provide it. For example, cargo ships may be allowed in, too, but I wouldn't know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)