Tuesday, April 11, 2006
[765] Of polluters may face death penalty
[765] Of polluters may face death penalty
On TV a few hours ago was a report on Akta Industri Perkhidmatan Air (Water Services Industry Bill) and it is set for approval soon (tag). The report on TV3 highlighted that a water polluter that causes death on purpose may face death penalty. I haven't had the chance to take a look at the bill since I can't find it on the net. The most relevant result is an article at Bernama. The Bernama's report dated yesterday:
I'm all for stricter environmental code but death penalty doesn't quite sound right. This is even more so since the death penalty is applicable only when the polluter pollutes with the "intention of causing" death. It sounds as if it belongs to some other act that deals with treason or sabotage.
Let's think about it. When a typical person or an entity pollutes, do they intent to cause death?
I doubt it. Typically, it's about externality; the polluters don't bare the cost of pollution and pass the cost of pollution to society instead. I have never heard a profit-seeking entity pollutes with the intention of killing somebody else. Even there's death, these people don't intent to kill. They intent to cut cost instead. It's cheaper to pollute. For this reason, I feel this clause is meaningless. It gives so much leeway to polluters that it doesn't really matter if the clause is included in the bill. It is ineffective.
The punishment clause should be rewritten. The phrase with the intention of causing death should be removed and while the death penalty dropped. Instead, it would be better if the bill states that anybody - with or without intention of polluting - found guilty of polluting our water supplies will face prison time or heavy monetary penalty.
For a person that commits murder on purpose - by whatsoever mean - we don't need a new bill to deal with that, do we? Much less do we expect to deal with that in a water bill, in my humble opinion.
KUALA LUMPUR, April 10 (Bernama) -- Those who pollute the drainage or the water supply system may face death penalty when the Water Services Industry Bill 2006 is approved and enforced.
The bill tabled by the Communication, Water and Energy Minister Datuk Seri Dr Lim Keng Yaik for the first reading in Dewan Rakyat here also listed the acts considered as polluting drinking water and its penalties.
Dr Lim who also tabled the Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara Bill (SPAN) 2006 to create a commission to oversee and regulate the water supply and sewerage services in Peninsula said the second reading of both the bills would be done during the current sitting.
Under the Water Services Industry Bill, anyone found guilty with the intention of causing the death face a death penalty or jail up to 20 years and rotan.
If the death is caused by radioactive and toxic pollutants discarded in the water, those found guilty can be jailed not more than 10 years or fined not more than RM500,000 or whipping or all three.
I'm all for stricter environmental code but death penalty doesn't quite sound right. This is even more so since the death penalty is applicable only when the polluter pollutes with the "intention of causing" death. It sounds as if it belongs to some other act that deals with treason or sabotage.
Let's think about it. When a typical person or an entity pollutes, do they intent to cause death?
I doubt it. Typically, it's about externality; the polluters don't bare the cost of pollution and pass the cost of pollution to society instead. I have never heard a profit-seeking entity pollutes with the intention of killing somebody else. Even there's death, these people don't intent to kill. They intent to cut cost instead. It's cheaper to pollute. For this reason, I feel this clause is meaningless. It gives so much leeway to polluters that it doesn't really matter if the clause is included in the bill. It is ineffective.
The punishment clause should be rewritten. The phrase with the intention of causing death should be removed and while the death penalty dropped. Instead, it would be better if the bill states that anybody - with or without intention of polluting - found guilty of polluting our water supplies will face prison time or heavy monetary penalty.
For a person that commits murder on purpose - by whatsoever mean - we don't need a new bill to deal with that, do we? Much less do we expect to deal with that in a water bill, in my humble opinion.
