1,DEWAN___ANSWER_ON INFRASTURETURE PROJECTS IN SARAWAK

2,REPORTS ON EFFECTS OF HAZE 

3,FINANCIAL ALLOCATION TO FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS IN SARAWAK

4,POULTRY/ANIMAL FEED PRODUCED LOCALLY

5,PLAN TO MAKE SIBU DIVISION A VIABLE TOURIST DESTINATION
 

Speeches /Debates

(a) Speech on Dewan Undangan Negeri (Privileges etc) Bill 

(b) Speech on Sales Tax Bill 

(c) Speech on Wildlife Protection Bill 

(d)Speech on Motion of Thanks to TYT 

Datuk Speaker, Sir,

I also rise to participate in the debate pertaining to the ?Wild Life Protection Bill, 1998?.

The introduction of the Bill to update the old law by repealing the old Wild life Protection Ordinance, 1990 is timely and ought to be welcomed. 

The Bill has extra meaning to me personally because I love animals, bird, reptiles etc, particularly seeing them roaming in their natural habitat, away from hunters and poachers going for their skins, meat and parts. I have made it a point that I would not consume any meat from the wildlife, including bats, boars, deer, turtle, monkeys and snakes. I don?t even touch dogs? meat (I know some Members here do, they salivate the moment they hear dogs? meat)!

The Bill constitutes a comprehensive legislation for the protection and conservation of wildlife and plants and for the constitution and management of Wild Life Sanctuaries in the State and to stringently regulate commercial sale of meat of wild animals.

It is significant that wild animals and plants are classified into two categories, totally protected and protected and they are listed in Part I and Part II respectively of the First Schedule. Part I and Part II of the 2nd Schedule list out the totally protected and protected plants respectively.

In fact, the categories of totally protected and protected animals and plants are so diverse that it is not an understatement to say that many of our people are not aware of these diverse species. A scientist in a foreign university whom I talked to on 2nd May, 1998 was pleasantly surprised by the diversity of the Sarawak animal and plant kingdom.

Perhaps the state government should take concrete measures to promote our National Parks and Wild Life Sanctuaries both locally as well as abroad. Sarawak?s wild life may well be a important tourist attraction. If it has not been done, the state government may consider setting up a updated page in the Internet at the World Wide Web specifically on Sarawak animals, with their close up pictures, historic and current status, future species population trends, natural history including ecological relationships, historic and current habitat trends, population demographics and their relationship to long term sustainability, and historic and current species management activities. If one surfs the Internet you would see hundreds of wildlife sites from USA, Canada and Australia having been put up in the Net.

Datuk Speaker, Sir,

It has been said that wild animals often provide early warning signals about the quality of our environment. The Ohio Wildlife Center which rehabilitates all species of injured and orphaned native wildlife, and which fulfils a community need for wildlife information, observation, research and protection, theorized that through the data that the Centre accumulates from admission cases and physical examinations, environmental stresses and disease outbreaks are monitored. I understand that the survival of our animals has been affected by human activities at or near their habitat, owing to economic development. It used to be that the natives are the only hunters for these wild animals as a source of food, and through generations they have been able to conserve and sustain the number of these wild animals. However, as logging roads are opened up into the jungle, the town folks have also developed the yearn to hunt for these animals, either for pleasure or for meat. Hunting now has become indiscriminate. Not only traditional animals such as wild boars and deer are targets, but anything that comes within range of their bullets, including birds and flying foxes, and even from the most endangered species. Sometimes, human beings are treated as wild life and being gunned down.

Human activities have led to a large reduction in the variety of wild animals. These activities have made extinct animals more extinct. It is essential to legislate for their protection before it is too late.

Datuk Speaker, Sir,

As society becomes more complex, the people have developed a taste for meat from the wild life. Hence we can see many restaurants in town selling dishes of meat of wild animals. The people have also started to develop a belief that certain parts of animals are able to enhance sex drive. Hence, I received an e-mail from a University Professor saying that some one was sadistic and cruel enough to keep a bear in a cage, do a little incision, connect a tube to the gall bladder and collect drips of its bile with a view to consume it to enhance sex drive. How disgusting? How ridiculous? Men driven by their lust for sex, being overwhelmed as such at the expense of wild animals. 

Some people believe that certain parts of animals possess medicinal value. One of those beliefs is that the stones of porcupines are able to treat if not cure cancer. I am sure the Honourable Minister knows exactly what I am talking about. There is no biological term for this, stones of porcupines. Stones, zau, to be romanised as ?zau?, I suppose would be accurate enough. I know of at least one timber tycoon in Sibu who before his death resorted to buying these porcupine stones believing in some old wives? tales that they are able to treat cancer. The incredible price tag ranged from RM5,000.00 for a little stone to RM25,000.00 for a big stone. Large numbers of these protected animals were hunted and killed for their stones, although to no avail. God still called him to rest.

These examples are mentioned to show that there is an urgent need to protect wild animals. To make protection of wildlife meaningful, there must be stringent laws, of which the present Bill is trying to introduce.

Datuk Speaker, Sir, 

I in fact listened to the speech by my learned friend from Pelawan and I do not need to repeat what my associate had already said. However, I have a little reservation as regards certain clauses of the Bill which I hope to draw to the attention of the Honourable Minister. Ahli Yang Berhormat for Samariang talked about Ahli Yang Berhormat for Pelawan for being premature to ask the Honourable Minister to reply to certain question before the Bill is passed into law. I tend to believe that the moment the Bill is passed into law it maybe too late. It may require another session. Some more expenses will be incurred, and I think the Honourable Chief Minister in his speech on the State Sales Tax Bill, 1998 was quite right by saying ?I am prepared to answer any question in my reply?. So, on that score I hope that I would not be condemned or accused of being pre-mature by asking certain questions and hoping for some clarification, if not reply, from the Honourable Minister.

Datuk Speaker, Sir,

I wish to refer to two clauses in our Bill. Clause 29(1) of the Bill says that ?Any person who hunts, kills, captures, sells, offers for sale or claims to be offering for sale, imports, exports, or is in possession of, any totally protected animal or any recognizable part or derivative thereof, or any nest thereof, except in accordance with the permission in writing of the Controller for scientific or educational purposes or for the protection and conservation of such wild animal, shall be guilty of an offence?.

Clause 29(2) deals similarly as regards protected animals.

Clause 37(1) says ?No person shall, unless licensed under this Ordinance, have in his possession any species of wild mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian ?

provided that ?

(a) a native residing within a Native Area Land or Native Customary Land may have in his possession, for his own consumption or use any wild mammal, reptile or amphibian or other recognizable part or derivative thereof; and

(b) any other person may have, for his own consumption not more than five kilograms of wild mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian.

Now, I do read with a little bit of uneasiness these two clauses and I think there is an element of confusion. I would have thought that by Clause 2, ?animal? has been defined to mean any species of animals, and includes mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians etc. Hence, the words mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian mentioned in Clause 37 are actually animals as defined. 

Clause 29 talks about possession also, which is the subject of Clause 37. I wonder whether there is any overlapping and therefore becomes repetitive.

Also, there seems to be a little confusion within Clause 37 itself. Clause 37(1) specifically mentions wild mammal, bird, reptile or amphibians, same in Clause 37(1)(b), but Clause 37(1)(a) specifically excludes ?bird?. Is it the Minister?s intention that even the native under Clause 37(1)(a) should not be allowed to possess for his own consumption or use ?bird?? 

Question 2: Clause 37(2) provides the offences if you contravene Clause 37(1). Hence by (a), if the animal concerned is a totally protected species, the penalty follows Clause 29(1), and by (b) if the animal concerned is a protected species, then the penalty follows clause 29(2). However, the proviso in Clause 37(1)(a) mentions nothing of either totally protected or the protected categories. Is it the Minister?s intention to say that under Clause 37(1) a native may have in his possession for his own consumption or use three categories of animals, i.e. mammal, reptile and amphibians, even if they shall belong to the totally protected and most extinct of categories? And does the same apply for Clause 37(1)(a)?

Question 3: Possession is not defined in the Bill. The question is at what point in time does possession begin? There may be a little problem when it comes to interpreting 37(1)(b), the permissive clause. Suppose A, a sole hunter, being a non-native, kills a mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian. He intends to bring it home to his kampong, 2 miles away, to share amongst his kinsmen who did not follow him into the jungle. These of his kinsmen may or may not know he had gone hunting. While carrying the animal carcass on his back, and before reaching his house, he was caught by the enforcing officer. Would he be guilty of an offence under the law, particularly under Clause 37(3)?

So much for my uneasiness when reading the Bill, and I hope some answers maybe forthcoming.

Generally, however, I think it is a good Bill, at least on the spirit of it, and I therefore voice my support.