视野决定格局，心智决定方向：函达 张守江律师有关董总争纷的立言、立论

图取自：http://www.liketruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/41.jpg

张律师：

您回应郑自勉的文章，被众多叶邹派粉丝张贴在面墙，我亦被Alan Ong Yeow  Fooi加标签，置入性行销，有幸拜读。长文洋洋洒洒约4千余字，却尽失中肯，尽显偏颇。晚辈趁周日闲暇，特修函一封，表述您的错误立言、立论。

“少数服从多数，没有例外”

【1】       前辈引援60年代华校面临改制时刻，二分之三华校校董诸公接受改制，并以今日独中的成就，企图佐证人多不一定对，以驳斥“少数服从多数，没有例外”的铁律。

【2】       这是一项明显的错误援引；60年代华校面临改制的投票，是完全不具备约束力的，投票过后，各自为政，然而董总作为一个法人实体，会员、中委、常委的投票，完全是具备法律约束力的。

【3】       您的引述，唤起我曾经阅读过的哲学史，仿佛是把苏格拉底和柏拉图时代的马其顿、雅典城邦松散结构现象，强套入拥有严格法律体系的当代新加坡，意图佐证新加坡的不合理、不明智。这种鱼目混珠的行文用句，不可取！

【4】       就是叶邹刚愎自用，不愿意贯彻“少数服从多数，没有例外”铁律，董总才会闹得如此狼狈不堪，难道这就是前辈观念下的“对”？！

【5】       叶邹固然有个人的权益（Right）去坚持自己所为的“对”，但是却实实在在损害了华教的利益（Interest）。也许绝大走夫贩卒无法区分“权益”和“利益”，学法的人必须要时时刻刻将两者区分。

【6】       再者，您伙同一些华教左胶将60年代的改制，视为一种万恶政策，是极其腐朽及劣质的意识形态。晚辈是道道地地改制下的国中生，对华文水平从白话文到文言文再到意象文掌握能力、中华人文荟萃、中国古代与现代史乃至台海两岸史迹等，自认不逊于独中生。为什么华教左胶们会认为独中生彰显Chineseness，而国中生不能？这是意淫了Chineseness！（按：我曾经在STPM时期进入某独中，不久便和教授历史科的印裔班主任发生冲突，走过自我流放，直至离校毕业，坚定弃拿离校证和毕业证书至今，直至308前一晚和江南大叔演出，两次踏入该独中校园。）

“任期为4年”（Shall be for four years）

【7】       您引述董总章程5A.9条中“任期为4年”，并将之翻译为 Shall be for four years是严重错误的。按照一般法律的诠释，Shall具备Mandatory（依法强制性的）的意义。您把原本的“为”字，翻译为Shall，是企图让人以为是Mandatory，为叶邹坚持不下台寻求一项牵强的理由。

【8】       董总章程一共出现了25次的【须】字眼，为什么5A.9条中出现的是【为】字眼，而不是【须】？

【9】       在中文修辞，“须”、“需”、“理应”、“应该”等，有不同的内涵与意义，这和英文的修辞：Shall/Must，Need，Ought，Should等雷同。董总章程5A.9条中“任期为4年”里的【为】究竟应该怎么解读和翻译呢？按我国联合邦宪法赋予结社自由的精神，【为】应该翻译为Ought，而不是Shall。这意味着，“理应”是4年，而不是“必须”4年。

【10】   事实上，高庭法官已经裁决，中央委员和中央常务委员不享有4年的“必须”任期，并谕令叶新田纳入“解散中央委员会和中央常务委员会”议程，并召开会议。该名高庭法官也驳回了叶新田申请暂緩执行庭令的申请，这可看出该名高庭法官是多么不齿叶新田的作为。您这又何苦为叶邹粉饰恶行呢？

【11】   是故，从高庭的判决来看，高庭否决了您将【为】翻译成Shall的语义。

【12】   即使是Shall，法官也可以基于“自然公正”和“衡平法”原则，行使酌处权给予否决。

三宗先例

【13】   您援引的3宗先例，乍看之下仿佛颇具说服力。

【14】   约6年前，我参加仲裁官培训班时，有一讲师（没记错的话，是目前吉隆坡区域仲裁中心，KLRCA，总监Datuk Professor Sundra Rajoo）提出这么一道问题：我国是个习惯法国度，有先例（Precedent）作为审判裁决参考，那么一名仲裁官在审理案件时，究竟是先行分析事实，选择适用法律，有了腹稿，再搜寻适用先例，还是先以先例作为指引，再分析事实，选择适用法律？

【15】   学员们与讲师互动讨论的结果是前者，即：搜寻适用先例是在分析事实，选择适用法律，有了腹稿之后。理由计有：没有两个案子是一模一样的、先例是配角，不是主角、即使先例类似，Subject Matter也可以不同、即使Subject Matter类似，引发争议的过程和程序也可以不同、在诉讼程序里，先例是在诉讼最后阶段提呈，不是在先前阶段。

【16】   由是观之，您简略形容的3宗先例，对思维慎密且具备法学素养的读者，并没有太大的影响力。然而对叶邹“衣带渐宽终不悔，蜡炬成灰泪始干”的粉丝群，就如捡到宝。

【17】   您必须坦然告诉叶邹粉丝们，在叶邹诉讼案件中，高庭法官已经否决了这些先例，不然也不会裁决叶新田败诉。

6月10日的中委会议

【18】   随着高庭于6月11日的裁决，指明道姓哪25名人士可以在6月14日的中委会议开会，6月10日的中委会议就即刻被否决。

【19】   叶邹从来就不曾针对6月10日的中委会议，入禀法庭申请。叶邹是针对6月14日的中委会议入禀诉讼。

【20】   您抓住6月10日的中委会议猛打，我觉得您打错方向了，要打就打6月14日的中委会议，而不是6月10日的。当然，在操弄叶邹粉丝情绪考量下，这的确会掀起他们的悲情愤慨，但是这不应该是一名学法的人士所为的。

“关中是否独中？”

【21】   在回答“关中是否独中”的问题时，您必须先行规范、界定“独中”的内涵。然而，按当下有效的《1996年教育法令》，并没有对“独中”作出规范、界定。“独中”一词，肯定不具备法理基础，仅是方便人们沟通的特定范畴。

【22】   您固然可以回溯到马哈迪时期的政治方案，并争论其延续性和有效性，然而1997年6月28日董总发布的官方文告具体指出，独中之所以能够生存下来，是当局没有严格执行《1996年教育法令》第17条（1）项。我出示当时的官方文告（原文摘录自：http://www.djz.edu.my/resource/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4585:1997-06-281996&catid=135:1997-&Itemid=9）如下：

（四）关于独中存亡的问题

或许，有人认为，独中（在第151条下）“被认为已经注册了”，因而独中可以继续存在。

但是，这是否就意味着，独中已得到了很好的法律保障？我长期以来所存有的疑虑可以消除了？

不！从新法令的有关条文来看，独中的地位并没有得到很好的法律保障。我们只要看看两项条文（第17条（1）和第8条）就可真相大白了。

独中未受豁免（第17（1）条）

第17（1）条明文规定：除了新法令下所设立的国民型学校（华、印小学）和被部长所豁免的任何教育机构（学校等）以外，国语必须成为所有的教育机构的主要教学媒介。这就是说，所有的学校（包括独中）都必须以国语作为主要教学媒介，除非这些学校已获得部长豁免。

华文独中不属于国民型学校。依照第17条（1）的规定，独中就必须以国语为主要教学媒介，除非获得部长的豁免。到目前为止，独中并没正式获得部长的豁免。

其实，大家记忆犹新，新法令通过前后，华社极力争取独中受正式豁免，但至今仍没下文。既然如此，怎能肯定地说，独中的法律地位已得到保障了？

独中困境

只要部长严格执行第17条（1）（即贯彻以国语为主要教学媒介的国家教育政策）的话，要独中遵守法律条文，以国语作为主要教学媒介以实现国家教育政策，那么，独中的存在，哪里还有法律保障？这不是一目了然的事吗？这是不是我们的隐忧呢？

【23】   时任董总法律顾问杨培根律师于2009年3月11日撰文《1996年教育法令问答录》中，也作出相同的阐述。我出示当时的《杨文》（原文摘录自：http://www.djz.edu.my/resource/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36:1996&catid=9:2009-03-06-07-51-46&Itemid=13）如下：

（五）独中问题

11.新《教育法令》对独中有什么不利影响？

答：新《教育法令》对独中影响很大。

至少有2项条文，决定着独中的生存或消失。这2项条文的内容大意如下：－

(1) “国语必须成为国家教育制度内所有教育机构的主要教学媒介……除非得到教育部长的豁免。”(第17(1)条)(注：国家教育制度内的教育机构包括私立学校，独中等)。

到目前为止，法令中并没有任何条文正式豁免独中，使独中不受这条文的约束。

如果有人说，法令中有豁免独中的条文，那是误导性的言论。如果独中不被豁免，独中也必须采用“国语”作为其主要教学媒介，而不能采用“华语”作为其主要教学媒介。这么一来，独中将改制。

(2) 另一项条文规定：“每一间学校必须为学生准备参加政府考试，除非获得豁免。”（第19，74条）

法令中没有任何条文正式豁免独中，使独中免受这条文的管制。这意味着独中生必须参加政府考试。这是强制性的，而不是自愿的。它将进而影响独中办学方针，使独中改变教学媒介语、课本及师资。独中将失去其特质，再次面临改制。

【24】   按大将出版社社长傅承德的撰文，60所独中各师其政，统考属于自由选项，有者更非常偏向A Level和国外大学课程联盟，行政用语也不是全是中文等等有违《独中教学纲领》的指导。若然，为什么这些独中依旧归入60所独中行列？

【25】   由是观之，当您申论“关中不是独中”时，您就必须阐明独中的属性和本质，不然您的申论是空乏的、煽情的、扭曲的、偏颇的！

统考的问题

【26】   您言之凿凿，引经据典试图建立“关中不可报考统考，统考只局限在60所独中”的法理依据，尽管可以迷惑部分人士，但是更多人士十分不认同乃至唾弃您的立场、立言、立论。

【27】   一言以蔽之，既然您等如此坚信“统考只局限于60所独中的法理依据”，晚辈请您说服叶邹去函教育总监，作出以下具体询问：

            27.1.            按照《1996年教育法令》，在没获得考试局发出的准证情况下，董教总是否可以主办统考？

            27.2.                     若27.1的答案是肯定的，按照《1996年教育法令》，报考统考的学生是否仅局限以下60所独中？（提供60所独中列表）

【28】   设若叶邹能够获得教育总监回函，具体给予以下答复，而不是“知悉”的用词：

            28.1.                     是的，按照《1996年教育法令》，在没获得考试局发出的准证情况下，董教总是可以主办统考。

            28.2.                     是的，按照《1996年教育法令》，报考统考的学生仅局限以下60所独中。

那么，您等叶邹一派肯定反败为胜，赢获华社赞誉，名留华教史册，万古流芳！

【29】   设若叶邹无法获得以上具体回复，或仅是含蓄的“知悉”回复，或拒绝去函询问，请坦诚承认本身的判断失误，即刻给予纠正。

【30】   统考的问题必须回到务实层面，在现有的灰色地带追求突破，您等实在不宜继续扭曲事实，操弄华社情绪。

建立一个有序网络社群

【31】   未知您是否察觉，叶邹粉丝群在面书上的言论表述，尽显流氓地滚痞子风格？您作为这一群体的重要智囊与思维导师，具有不可推卸的责任与义务，当对这些流氓地滚痞子风格的言论表述，当头棒喝，加以制止。

【32】   即使社交媒体不能成为启发民智的平台，也不应沦为藉由流氓地滚痞子风格的言论表述，加速社群失序的推手。

【33】   是以，恳请您协助匡正社媒网络歪风！

顺祝      大安！

晚生      林德瀚

2015年8月16日

于槟州大山脚

Translate the Momentum of Bersih 4 into a Wave of National Building: A Bersih+ Illusion

The Bersih 4 Rally has taken a bow. Its cumulated momentum is evidentially overwhelming. Without taking into account of the ethnicity composite, if such a big momentum could be translated into a wave of national building with consistent amplification, the outcome would be profound and tremendous.

National building, by its very virtue, goes beyond a narrowly defined political reformation and corruption extinguishment. Public sentiments could be easily arisen and manipulated by skilled politicians in their favours and advantages. Hence, I rule out political wills of stakeholders in this context of national building, and urge to redirect our thoughts towards a more viable, secure and economical avenue.

The rise of China as a strong power in just 30 years is undeniable. China is very good in formulating propagandas and injecting contextual discourse into them. Among other, I vividly recall one is “Rescue Country Using Technology” （科技救国 in Chinese language）and this propaganda subsequently was translated into a series of real actions and supported by whole citizens of China.

Today, the 4^th wave of Industrial Revolution, which generally termed Industry 4.0, is emerging at its infancy stage. The fast-moving countries have formulated a series of policies and technological preparations to confront the advent of the 4^th wave of Industrial Revolution. To name a few:

• Industry 4.0 - (Germany)
• Smart Manufacturing Leadership Coalition - (U.S.A)
• China Manufacturing 2025 - (China)
• Industrial Value Chain Initiative – (Japan)
• Manufacturing Innovation 3.0 – (South Korea)
• Smart Industry – (Dutch)
• Industry+Education+Society 4.0 – (Mexico)
• Industria 4.0 – (Spain)
• Smart Production / Service 4.0 – (Austria)
• New Industrial France – (France)

To make a drastic improvement and to regain a pride of being called Malaysian, Malaysia must not lag behind again in the race of the 4^th wave of Industrial Revolution, no matter what political atmosphere and inefficiencies of government machineries for both BN and PR. It is simply an act of lacking self-motivation to advance our footprints, regardless of whatsoever obstacles and barriers, if we easily accuse to others in various cheap ways. The prerequisite for a country to be strong, the Rakyat must be strong in the first place, but not strong in accusing others cheaply. But, too often, our Rakyat exhibits Notorious Trait in the Name of Smartness, and I hope our Rakyat could remove such notorious traits soonest possible and replace with proactiveness and self-enhancement.

A clean politic (I doubt if a clean politic subsists in any human society, past, present and future.) does not automatically envision and naturally enable a strong country. A strong country is largely driven by how well the technological adoption and deployment could align with socioeconomic development and transformation, and thus generate prosperity along a complex nexus of value chain.

Technology can better political atmosphere and industrial performance. Instead of adopting old-fashion demands through rallies, why don’t we deliberate and endeavour technological innovation to pursue our aspiration of similar objectives?

During the 1^st and 2^nd Industrial Revolution, we were at Dutch and British colonies era respectively. When it came to the 3^rd Industrial Revolution, although Malaysia has made significant progress, its sustainability of competitiveness remains to be questionable, doubtful and a drop of confidence to move forward to confront the advent of the 4^th wave of Industrial Revolution.

Now that, Malaysia has come to a T-junction of “Making a Quantum Leap” or “Business As Usual”. Whether one likes it or otherwise, the 4^th wave of Industrial Revolution, commonly known as Industry 4.0, is in progress of making its reality. I invite those who wish to see a strong Malaysia, regardless taking part in Bersih 4 or otherwise, to join me endeavoring towards a better and stronger Malaysia.

In the era of Industry 4.0, one fashionable term is called Internet+, which carries the meaning of the application of Internet plus a specific economic sector such as Banking/Finance, Law, Logistic/Transportation, Manufacturing, Education, Leisure/Hospitality, Politic/Administrative, Medicine, Construction, Sport, and the like. To this end, I borrow without obtaining permission to use the word Bersih and repackage it into Bersih+ as an aspiration to translate the momentum of Bersih 4 into a wave of national building.     

Notorious Trait in the Name of Smartness: A Gentle Reminder on the Question of Malaysian Workforce for National Competitiveness

Certain quarters of Malaysian workforce exhibit a notorious trait: When a MNC corporate H.Q. is still assessing which country should be tasked to new and/or transferred projects, these Malaysian workforces have swiftly started deliberating ways to pushing off them to other countries. They defend that, why do more while salary remains the same?!

If my observation and received feedback are of correct and precise, workforces from other alternate countries rarely display similar reaction and response to the extent that our workforces do. Conversely, they welcome with a certain level of reluctance; despite that, they may be aware of lacking required capabilities and resources.

Production/manufacturing professionals from Malaysia would surely admit that, not too far ago of a decade to two, we travelled to China to transfer knowledge and skills to production plants in China, but we now travel to China to acquire their knowledge and skills before implementing new methods, solutions, technologies in the production plants in Malaysia.

What has made this 180-degrees overturn?

It could, perhaps arguably, be largely attributed to the consequences reflected in the above mentioned notorious trait of Malaysian workforce. While the workforce in China is so hungry about skills and knowledge acquisition for self-enrichment and endeavoring towards making a breakthrough; we, the workforce in Malaysia, are happily satisfied with our skillsets and knowledge level but praying for higher pay with lesser job responsibilities. When being asked about the loss of national competitive advantage, we have got used to pinpointing to government corruption.

But, wait a minute!

Don’t you think that it is simply too cheap to make such pinpointing without self-examining our notorious trait? While we all have learned that attitude determines altitude, haven’t we too much compromised with this notorious trait in the name of smartness? 

If we have compromised this, should we still regard ourselves as being in possession of moral standing to pinpointing the loss of competitive advantage resulted from and impacted by government corruption? Do we think those Mat Saleh from top management of MNCs are stupid enough and unaware of our notorious trait? What could be the subsequent corporate decisions when it comes to the stage of determining employment layoffs and plant facilities shutdown?

The late internationally renowned management guru, Pater Drucker, wrote that the national competitiveness is measured by how competitive the enterprises (companies) in that country, whereas the competitiveness of the enterprises (companies) must be embodied by their workforces. Accordingly, Drucker has established a sound correlation between national competitiveness and workforces via the moderator known as enterprises (companies). The function of the moderator in this context has been gravely frustrated and unfortunately obstructed since the notorious trait has become a norm to the organizational culture of enterprises (companies) in the name of smartness, and thus the national competitiveness remains strangling.     

It is indisputable that the journey ahead of Malaysian competitiveness is still full of sorrow and grief if we keep failing to examine our self in the context of Malaysia's talent development. Too often, we hear about the issue of talent shortage is very serious in Malaysia, but I am unsure about its root cause as to whether such shortage is referring to technical incompetency or poor attitudes towards job passions and cultures. If it is meant to the former, the situation is not too bad in considering that technical competency could be relatively easy to be boosted and uplifted. But if it is unfortunately meant to the later, we really have to study what has catalyzed our working attitude to this extent of the notorious trait in the name of smartness!     

Information Is Not Panacea. It Is the Model That Ultimately Matters!

Stands on its own, the famous quote of “Information is power!”, if it is not a lie, exhibits a grave inadequacy in representing the real face of various kinds of information consumption. 

 

What is information in the first place? The information is data within the proper and focused context across time and space. Data exists and demises everywhere and anywhere in accordance with individual preference and selective perception to a subject matter. For data to be considered an asset, it must be understood and useful to decision-making process.

 

Decision-making process, indeed, is guided by a selective model, be it explicit or implicit. Too often, a decision maker is not even aware of the existence of model being adopted and framed in the process. No any decision may be made without a guiding model, whereas information is merely supporting factors to justify the decision. It is a misconception that more information will drive batter decision. In fact, the selection and development of model within a particular context in decision-making is more crucial and relevant to a batter decision than information on its own. But then what is a model actually?

 

A model is a real world representation. I like to use the scenario of a map in my lecture class. A map is a model as it is a representation of the real geographical existence. However that, a map cannot contain each pieces of information on the land. A usable and practical map should only include those pieces of information that could serve the purpose of reading and interpreting map to accomplish certain purpose. Hence the map to direct a traveller to move from one destination to another is very much different from the map for installing public utilities despite the geographical area is exactly same.   

 

In software engineering, we have too often heard the word “model”. But I bet you, many of those software professionals are not able to explain articulately the rationale and logic behind such modelling constructs. In database and data warehousing analysis and design, we talked about data modelling; in business process analysis and design, we talked about process modelling; in performance improvement, we talked about optimization modelling; and in enterprise architecture, we talked about architectural modelling.

 

All these modelling constructs require extensive deliberation and organization using knowledge, experience and techniques accumulated from learning and working. If a software professional does not display passion to consistently enhance, enrich and embody his/her skills, neither can we expect him/her plays good roles of modeller, nor problem solver, nor opportunity creator.   

Section 114A of Evidence Act: Perspective from an Information Technologist

The introduction of Section 114A receives many controversies and criticisms. When the issue surfaced a couple of weeks ago, and swiftly became a public debate, my immediate reaction was that, why the opposition parties were silent during the parliamentary sittings or any time before it came into force, but rather awaiting the campaign, Internet Blackout Day, on the 14^th day of August 2102 led by Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) ?

 

Almost all criticisms focus on public law, i.e. Section 114A could provide a foundation to legal enforcers and prosecutors to abuse their powers and thus becoming a means for ruling party bullying supports of opposition parties. While we cannot deny such potential side-effect in the course of regulating cyber-wrongdoings in public law, we should equally look into the good points in private law.

 

For example, defamation could be either a criminal or civil wrongdoing, but unless the victim of defamation is a well known public figure, it is utmost unlikely that police and/or law enforcer from relevant government agencies will seriously exercise their power to further investigate into the complaint be lodged by way of precisely looking into the possibility of instituting criminal defamation proceedings. Hence, the residuary avenue that the victim could take is civil defamation proceedings.

 

Without intervene of police and/or law enforcer in a defamatory wrongdoing investigation convicted in cyberspace, the evidence to be adduced before a court in civil litigation could be even harder than in criminal litigation. Such difficulty lies in procedural requirements in evidence law. With Section 114A comes into force, the plaintiff (victim) may only be required to establish prima facie evidence instead of adducing full evidence, particularly in procedural compliances and regulations.

 

Approximately five years ago, I attempted to provide computer forensics service to industry. The underlying objective of this service is to assist disputing parties to discover the truth of computer-related wrongdoings. I discussed this plan with research faculties from School of Computer Science of USM, and Faculty of Law of MMU. It was concluded that, despite the truth could be revealed in substantive way on the conditional requirements that the hardware could be provided, the truth of findings could be easily rebutted from procedural perspective in the absence of procedural framework that regulating the operational works of computer forensics. Just like language-translated evidence submitted before a court must be done by a certified translator recognized by a court, in America, the person who carries out computer forensics evidence must be certified and recognized by court in order he understands and practices respective procedural compliance before the admissibility of such evidence.

 

Section 114A exhibits certain ingredients of occupier liability. Traditionally, tort of occupier liability is applied to physical premises and land. In cyberspace, many account owners of social media perceive this dedicated cyberspace as their cyber-home. They have rights to determine who is welcome and who is not. They also can determine the contents in their cyber-home as to whether to keep or remove.  Hence, the advent of ICT should naturally extend the meaning of tort of occupier liability from physical premises and land to cyber-home. Having said this, the primary difference between the two should be that, the occupier of cyber-home owes a duty of performing house-keeping of his cyberspace if any content deemed to be defamatory and/or seditious within a reasonable time horizon, but the owner of physical premises and land cannot perform post-event rectification. The principle of tort of occupier liability should therefore evolve in accordance with the advent of ICT and its implication to socioeconomic changes.

 

Nonetheless that, holding an account registration person for Internet access liable on the principle of reverse evidence is apparently ridiculous and gravely wrong. If such a liability stand, then Internet service providers or licensees under Communications and Multimedia Act, such as Telekom Malaysia which provides Streamyx and Unifi, should equally be held liable as part of wrongdoing chain echelon. Indeed, they have to prove themselves innocent prior to an Internet account registration person proves himself innocent.

 

In summary, the introduction of Section 114A of Evidence Act should be seen as an endeavour to combat cyber-wrongdoings which serves as procedural law to complement inadequacy of respective substantive laws. Neither should it be short-sightedly perceived as with bad and hidden agenda for political purpose, nor be it a means to restrain fundamental liberty of speech freedom. While the advent and development of ICT is characterized by fast-moving, the development of legal principles must not be left too far behind towards socioeconomic demands in a balancing mechanism. The gap between the two domains will surely be enlarged and deepened if our legal professionals fail to exhibit strong technopreneur spirits to confront ever-changing environment as what described by Professor Susskind in his popular book, “The End of Lawyers?”. Notwithstanding, however that, I echo the suggestion of Malaysian Bar to call upon setting-up a taskforce comprising civil society, industry players and technology experts to revisit concerns and issues surrounding the controversial Section 114A.

 

The Importance of Being Equipped with Risk Intelligence Capability

The UK philosopher and psychologist, Dr. Dylan Evans, defines risk intelligence as “a special kind of intelligence for thinking about risk and uncertainty”, at the core of which is the ability to estimate probabilities accurately. Risk is often thought of in terms of threats — bad things happening to your business. Nevertheless that, risk also has a positive side, one that applies to value creation and risk taking for reward. Hence, business thrives by taking risks, but falter when risk is managed ineffectively.

A mankind receives signals of risk from our complex biosensor and biochemical mechanism and thereafter being transmitted via intricate nexus neural systems for further interpretation before biological body takes corresponding actions. A mankind is a learning organism. The ability to interpret incoming signals by ways of classifying and re-classifying them into complex categorical structures with embedded meanings is the foundation of building the intelligence of a mankind to confront risks before him. Although different person displays different characteristics of risk intelligence, the ability to translate incoming signals into corresponding actions within a reasonable time period determines the extent of intelligence and health a person is.

Putting the characteristics of human intelligence into enterprise strategies and operations in ever-increasing competitive and fast-moving business environment, the ability to manage risk is becoming essentially fundamental to business sustainability, growth and profitability. Unlike mankind, an enterprise does not possess the characteristics of intelligence by itself without a purposeful design, development, and deployment of its well-coordinated information systems. One may argue that his enterprise has deployed wonderful ERP, SCM, CRM, APS, MES, CMMS, PDM, and the like, but the bottom line is, as far as the characteristics of intelligence are taken into account, these systems are far less than adequate to enable addressing the issues arisen from risk intelligence.

Approximately two decades ago, University of Toronto embarked a big research project initiative known as Toronto Virtual Enterprise or TOVE in short. TOVE project has generated many insights into intelligence elements that an enterprise must possess in order to operate, compete and thrive. Unlike a mankind whom intelligence elements are represented by complex biosensor, biochemical mechanism, intricate nexus neural systems, and capability to translate into actions, an enterprise’s intelligence elements are constructed and represented by a comprehensive set of integrated enterprise ontologies.

An ontology body of knowledge has its philosophical root to Metaphysics, an area of the thoughts initiated by an ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle. Metaphysics has been further developed and being applied in three distinct disciplines, namely, Linguistics, Religion, and Computer Science. Along its course of evolution, different terminologies with some variances of application are introduced such as Ontology, Semantics, and Taxonomy.

As an information systems practitioner, I am much more interested in how integrated enterprise ontologies could be applied into the development of enterprise risk intelligence. We are witnessing the adoption of Business Intelligence (BI) for the purpose of business analytics has been gaining its big momentum over last few years. Whether or not the advent of Risk Intelligence would take a quantum leap in near future is a question of interest.