Tuesday, January 13, 2004
276 Of Malaysian environmental law
276 Of Malaysian environmental law
The latest report by WWF stated that one of the most recognizable mammals in the world, the orangutan faces extinction within the short time frame of 20 years.
With the fast pace deforestation due to excessive and illegal logging in both Malaysian and Indonesian’s jungle, the orangutan’s habitat is seriously threatened. Both Southeast Asian governments need to halt logging and increase forest patrol in Borneo and Sumatra. It is utterly imperative for both governments to get their act together if they could be called responsible for their own wildlife future.
Apart from deforestation, shockingly to me, poaching activity also exists. I’ve always thought poaching was a problem exclusive to Africa and other poor nations. Sadly, this is not the case.
Maybe it is here where environmentalists and libertarians could reconcile - the Big Brother cannot be trusted on the issues that matter.
In my opinion, environmental law in Malaysia is not sufficiently strong to prevent environmental wrongdoings. For instance, in Malaysia’s Forestry Act, the punishment for illegal logging is jail term between one and twenty years and a fine of RM 500 000, an equivalent of approximately USD 131 000.
First of all, though the jail term sounds bad with the maximum of 20 years, the minimum is too low. It needs to be increased to, say 5 years. That would teach the violators something. And most importantly, the monetary fine is most definately way too down below. A manager of a logging company easily makes millions of dollars. The industry itself is measured in billions. The fine of USD 131 000 is merely a minute fraction of their corrupted income. It’s not even a respectable dent. The level of penalty should be increased to a level that it really hurts both the foul company and its owner. Better, instead of a constant monetary term penalty, the fine should be proportional to its or his or her income.
The key to punishment is to prevent further violation and the penalty should be made larger than the logger expected income when he or she doesn’t suffer any setback, not merely to fine just for the sake of it.
And who did this law anyway? The lawmakers of the said Act are probably the ones of those political science graduates of which know nothing of economics or even rational mathematics. God! Please save my soul if those fools and stupids are running my country.
If ever the younger generation asks me what is an orangutan and if I won’t be able to show them a free living primate of that species, I swear to God, I will dedicate my life to hunt all the ones that are responsible of such extinction. I will make it a personal crusade, by gold, by blood or by God's name I will if that day comes.
But I pray sincerely, whole hearted, for that time to never come, whether it’s within my lifetime or farther.
p/s - don't you love unexpected humor?
"Not to make a pun, but I think it's shedding a light on serious regulatory and safety issues that are not getting much attention" - Art Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania on genetically modified pets, specifically the fluorescent fish. Report by the Chicago Tribune Online Edition, Jan 12th 2004.
With the fast pace deforestation due to excessive and illegal logging in both Malaysian and Indonesian’s jungle, the orangutan’s habitat is seriously threatened. Both Southeast Asian governments need to halt logging and increase forest patrol in Borneo and Sumatra. It is utterly imperative for both governments to get their act together if they could be called responsible for their own wildlife future.
Apart from deforestation, shockingly to me, poaching activity also exists. I’ve always thought poaching was a problem exclusive to Africa and other poor nations. Sadly, this is not the case.
Maybe it is here where environmentalists and libertarians could reconcile - the Big Brother cannot be trusted on the issues that matter.
In my opinion, environmental law in Malaysia is not sufficiently strong to prevent environmental wrongdoings. For instance, in Malaysia’s Forestry Act, the punishment for illegal logging is jail term between one and twenty years and a fine of RM 500 000, an equivalent of approximately USD 131 000.
First of all, though the jail term sounds bad with the maximum of 20 years, the minimum is too low. It needs to be increased to, say 5 years. That would teach the violators something. And most importantly, the monetary fine is most definately way too down below. A manager of a logging company easily makes millions of dollars. The industry itself is measured in billions. The fine of USD 131 000 is merely a minute fraction of their corrupted income. It’s not even a respectable dent. The level of penalty should be increased to a level that it really hurts both the foul company and its owner. Better, instead of a constant monetary term penalty, the fine should be proportional to its or his or her income.
The key to punishment is to prevent further violation and the penalty should be made larger than the logger expected income when he or she doesn’t suffer any setback, not merely to fine just for the sake of it.
And who did this law anyway? The lawmakers of the said Act are probably the ones of those political science graduates of which know nothing of economics or even rational mathematics. God! Please save my soul if those fools and stupids are running my country.
If ever the younger generation asks me what is an orangutan and if I won’t be able to show them a free living primate of that species, I swear to God, I will dedicate my life to hunt all the ones that are responsible of such extinction. I will make it a personal crusade, by gold, by blood or by God's name I will if that day comes.
But I pray sincerely, whole hearted, for that time to never come, whether it’s within my lifetime or farther.
p/s - don't you love unexpected humor?
"Not to make a pun, but I think it's shedding a light on serious regulatory and safety issues that are not getting much attention" - Art Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania on genetically modified pets, specifically the fluorescent fish. Report by the Chicago Tribune Online Edition, Jan 12th 2004.
