Let us save Malaysia

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

Call to action: Raelyn Rachele Chwee (left) and Christina Kow of the Waste Management Association of Malaysia passing on the message to passers-by.

We need to reduce or curb the use of single-use plastic masks in order to save our environment and planet. 

ANSWERING the earlier calls from the Malaysian Association of Tour and Travel Agents (MATTA) to turn to Cuti-Cuti Malaysia to help the local domestic tourism industry, my family and I decided to spend a weekend at Redang Island recently.

Interestingly, I was not alone at all in answering to this call during these febrile times. The island’s long beach was crowded with holidaymakers. We had a great stay at the Laguna Redang Island Resort. The hotel staff there were ever so helpful and courteous. They were in high spirits. 

But sadly, the lives of their counterparts in the Klang Valley especially in those hotels which have remained closed since movement control order in March have been one of despondency. Some of them have to turn to part-time jobs like riders for Grab Food and Foodpanda to make ends meet.  

This Covid-19 pandemic has indeed exacted an untold misery on the human race as well as the environment. But as I undertook snorkelling and enjoyed the rich underwater marine life in Redang, I felt as if God was telling us to be still for a moment and let the marine life heal and rewild itself during this period. 

Then it dawned upon me how acts of men could still harm them and the environment if our oceans are still clogged with more plastic waste, posing a huge threat to the marine ecosystems. Plastic pollution will exacerbate when non-biodegradable face masks made of polypropylene (PP) and gloves made of synthetic polymers such as vinyl find their way into our rivers and oceans. 

Already conservationists have found masks floating like jellyfish in the oceans and latex gloves strewn around seabeds. 

Sungai Layang Dam now at critical level

Pic by Zulkarnian Ahmad Tajuddin, New Straits Times

The Star

JOHOR BARU: The water level at the Sg Layang Dam has dropped to a critical level. The dam will only be able to supply water for between two and three weeks if the present weather persists.

So far, the authorities have not started any water rationing or scheduled water cuts for about 500,000 residents who get their supply from the dam.

The dam supplies water to those in Pasir Gudang and Johor Baru.

National Water Services Commission (SPAN) chief executive officer Datuk Mohd Ridhuan Ismail said that there was a high possibility of water cuts being implemented if the situation did not improve.

“The water level at Sungai Layang is now at 19.58m which is way below critical level of 23.5m.

“It is alarming because the level seems to be consistently dropping by about 0.03/0.04 metres per day,” he told reporters after visiting the Sungai Layang water treatment plant here.

Mourning a great leader

The Sunday Star

Legally Speaking by Roger Tan 

IN MEMORY: Sunday Star columnist Roger Tan paying tribute to the late Singapore founding father Lee Kuan Yew in the condolence book at the Singapore High Commission in Kuala Lumpur.

Spontaneous and emotional outpouring of grief by Singaporeans is indeed a testament to Lee Kuan Yew’s extraordinary achievement in creating a united nation out of a divided, polyglot, multi-racial and multi-religious population.

THE fact that today our Yang di-Pertuan Agong will represent Malaysia at Lee Kuan Yew’s funeral – an epochal event in the history of Singapore – speaks volumes of the island’s founding father as the greatest statesman in South-East Asia. 

In fact, President Richard Nixon held him up as a leader of similar stature as Winston Churchill. Most importantly, Lee was also instrumental in the formation of Malaysia and hence he and a generation of Singaporeans were once, albeit briefly, Malaysians between 1963 and 1965. 

Born on Sept 16, 1923, Lee read law at Cambridge University and obtained a starred double first and started practising as a lawyer in 1950 for almost a decade. As a legal assistant, he took up cases for trade unions, often on a pro bono basis. This undoubtedly helped him later to generate mass support for him when he became prime minister in 1959. 

Almost half a million Singaporeans have already turned up at Parliament House and the 18 community tribute sites to pay their last respects to the nonagenarian. Thousands more did not mind queuing for up to 10 hours the night before in order to reach the Parliament House where the body is lying in state. 

This spontaneous and emotional outpouring of grief by Singaporeans is indeed a testament to Lee’s extraordinary achievement in creating a united nation out of a divided, polyglot, multi-racial and multi-religious population. It is ironic that someone who had believed in Machiavelli, making him the most feared person in Singapore, is now someone who is most loved by his people. It is understandable that Singaporeans’ biggest regret is that their founding father would not be there on Aug 9 for their 50th national day celebrations. 

Lee was indeed a great leader in every sense of the word. He was humble enough to say sorry if he was wrong and if it was in the best interest of his county to do so. Hence, he had apologised to Malaysia a few times for some of his acerbic comments. 

He was also a first-class diplomat whose advice was often sought by leaders of superpowers even though he was just the head of “a little red dot” on the world map. 

Negotiate, not quarrel, over water

The Sunday Star

Legally Speaking by Roger Tan

Penang and Kedah must sit down and work out an agreement that’s mutually beneficial to both states and their people.

IT is interesting to read Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng’s statement that Kedah’s proposal to charge Penang for raw water was “unreasonable” and akin to “asking money for nothing” (“Penang not getting raw water from Kedah”, The Star, June 17).

It is equally interesting to read Kedah Mentri Besar Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir’s response that both state governments should negotiate the raw water payment issue. But this is not a new issue. The previous PAS-led government too had made a similar request.

To understand the issue, it is good to look at the diagram. Basically, there are three major river basins in Kedah – Kedah River, Muda River and Merbok River. The Muda River basin is the largest in Kedah covering a total area of about 4,150 sq km. (A river basin is an area of land drained by a river and its tributaries.) There are two dams in this basin – Muda dam and Beris dam. The Beris dam is located at Muda’s River’s tributary, Beris River. The Muda dam is located upstream of the Muda River covering an area of about 985 sq km. When necessary, the Muda and Pedu dams complement each other via the 6.6km Saiong tunnel.

The Pedu and Muda dams are located together with the Ahning dam in the Ulu Muda forest reserve, which includes the water catchment area – the size of which is larger than Penang state.

In 2003, a Barisan Nasional-led government had planned to log thousands of hectares of forest in this sprawling catchment area. In June 2008, Kedah Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Azizan Abdul Razak had also threatened to fell trees near this catchment area unless the Federal Government paid RM100mil to the Kedah Government.

Fortunately, no major logging took place, otherwise silt from logging would not only pollute rivers but also clog up dams and water treatment plants. Large-scale cutting down of trees too would increase the salinity level, causing the water in the reservoirs to turn salty. Hence, whatever happens to this area will adversely affect the lives of the people of Kedah and Penang. The reservoirs here irrigate our country’s main rice bowl and supply most of the water to the two states.

Function of law put to the test

The three legal issues that arose last week showed how pivotal it is to ensure our laws are enacted, interpreted and enforced accurately and efficiently. If not, these laws will be transformed into an ass.

Three interesting legal issues arose in the last two weeks. First, the Kuala Lumpur High Court (Appellate And Special Powers 4) last Monday ruled that the water concession agreement entered into by the Federal Government, the Selangor state government and Syarikat Bekalan Air Sdn Bhd (Syabas) could be made public, including an audit report which was said to have been presented to the Cabinet.

Second, the proposal by the Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Ministry to amend the Copyright Act, 1987 (Act 332) to hold landlords liable if their tenants have infringed intellectual property and copyright rights on the premises was greeted by an outcry from real estate owners.

Third, the Law Reform Committee headed by the Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk V.K. Liew proposed to amend the Statutory Declarations Act, 1960 (Act 13) to forbid Commissioners for Oaths (COs) to attest the execution of any statutory declaration (SD) which is contentious or criminal in nature.

Disclosure of Water Concession Agreement and Audit Report

Last Monday, Judicial Commissioner Hadhariah Syed Ismail allowed the disclosure of the documents to the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) and 13 others on two grounds:

> The applicants were adversely affected by the decision of former Energy, Water and Communications Minister Tun Dr Lim Keng Yaik not to make public the documents and thereby they had the locus standi or legal standing to sue; and

> The disclosure would not be detrimental to national security or public interest.

The judge added that the applicants had locus standi because they were paying consumers within the water concession area. As Syabas has monopoly over the distribution of treated water in that area, the applicants would have no choice but to pay for any increase in water tariff as there is no other alternative water distributor there.

She added that as water is essential to life, the applicants’ implied constitutional right to life has also been infringed.

As regards the disclosure of the two documents, the judge said she had read through them and found no information detrimental to national security or public interest. She also took note that the Selangor government and Syabas had indicated no objection to the disclosure, and some of the information relating to the water tariff increase was already known to the media and public.

She also ruled that it was nonsensical to say that any document put before the Cabinet is automatically “RAHSIA” under section 2A of the Official Secrets Act 1972 (Act 88).

This is indeed a landmark judgment for the following reasons:

> Cabinet papers are now not automatically protected by Act 88; and

> The judge had taken a liberal approach in affording legal standing to the applicants.

Based on existing legal authorities, the applicants in this action, known to lawyers as public interest litigation, ought to have first shown they had suffered damage peculiar to them or over and above the remaining water consumers in the area, and that their rights had been “substantially” affected.

If the applicants’ position is no different from the other water consumers, then they could not have been said to have been “adversely affected”. There is a ruling from the apex court which requires this to be a stringent test.

In any event, last Friday the Federal Government had obtained a stay on the disclosure of the documents. It will be interesting to see how our appellate courts deal with the issue of locus standi when the matter goes on appeal.

This decision differs from a 1994 Johor Baru High Court decision which held that the late politician-cum-lawyer Abdul Razak Ahmad was not entitled to examine the privatisation agreement between the Johor state government and the company developing the Johor Baru “floating city” project.

Justice Haidar Mohamed Nor ruled that as there was no legal duty imposed on the Government under the Government Contracts Act, 1949 to consult taxpayers like the applicant in respect of contracts made by the Government, the applicant had no legal right to examine the said agreement.

In fact, there are both good arguments for and against the relaxation on standing rules.

The Government’s most common fear is, of course, that public interest litigation can be turned into a “publicity interested litigation” or “politically interested/inspired/inclined litigation” with the purpose being to embarrass them and stall genuine government business.

But to social activists, too rigid an approach will cause injustice and immunise government decisions from curial scrutiny.

Proposal to amend Copyright Act

I believe the proposed amendment is to hold owners of commercial premises like shopping complexes liable if their tenants have used the premises to sell pirated DVDs and VCDs. If this is not the case, and it extends to private premises, then such amendment is totally unjustified.

As I understand, the proposed amendment will also make it a crime for those who purchase even a single pirated copy of DVD or VCD. It follows that a landlord can technically be liable if the tenant of his residential property is caught having in his possession even a pirated DVD or VCD!

To my mind, the Government cannot expect landlords of private premises to police the activities of their tenants. Already, the law as it stands, is not in favour of landlords. The landlord is helpless if a defaulting tenant refuses to vacate the premises because Section 7 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 (Act 137) does not allow a landlord to recover possession of the tenanted property without first having obtained a court order.

Hence, this section has been much abused by recalcitrant and defaulting tenants. In this respect, an amendment to Act 137 is perhaps more urgent.

Proposal to amend Statutory Declarations Act

The debate between Liew and Bar Council chairman Ragunath Kesavan about amending Act 13 is, in fact, much ado about nothing. Some of the duties which Liew had wanted to impose on the COs have in fact already been provided for by law – not under Act 13, but under the Commissioner for Oaths Rules 1993, made under the Courts of Judicature Act, 1964.

Under Rule 13 of the 1993 Rules, a CO is required, among other things:

> To read over and explain the contents of the documents and the exhibits to the maker of the document;

> Not to affix his seal to any document unless the maker of the document signs or affixes his thumbprint before the CO; and

> To refuse to attest to any document if he suspects that the person before him is engaging in deception, fraud, duress, or any other illegal conduct.

If a CO is found guilty of acting in breach of Rule 13, he can be liable to a fine not exceeding RM1,000, imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both.

Hence, it all boils down to enforcement. It is open knowledge that many makers of documents, particularly SDs and affidavits prepared by law firms, do not sign before the COs and these COs would affix their seals and sign the documents when they are brought to them by the clerks from various law firms.

In this regard, Liew’s concern that fraudulent land transactions can occur is not unfounded if a CO affixes his seal on a power of attorney when the makers are not before him.

In conclusion, the above issues go to show how pivotal it is the manner in which our laws are enacted, interpreted and enforced. If their enactment, interpretation and enforcement are not accurate and efficient, then these laws will be transformed into an ass.

Published in The Sunday Star on 04 July 2010.

The vandals must be kept out of our streets

I WAS driving past the Pelangi Utama Apartments in Petaling Jaya two weeks ago when something caught my eye.

It was not this newly-completed high-density condominium project but rather a row of young trees along Jalan Masjid PJU 6A opposite the apartments.

Nailed to these trees were posters and other hoardings advertising various goods and services ranging from food catering, sale and leasing of the apartment units, and plumbing services to moneylending.

I also noticed that some of these trees had been damaged with the bark ripped out and long metal nails protruding.

Fortunately, these trees were not the trees in The Lord of The Rings; otherwise they would come alive and exact vengeance on us humans.

Imagine also if the posters were not securely fastened to the trees. Strong winds could turn them into flying objects, posing a danger to road-users.

Sadly, this is not at all an uncommon sight throughout the country with lamp posts, telephone booths and Tenaga Nasional circuit boxes being three other favourite structures for such illegal bunting.

Hence, one may ask where the enforcement is when telephone numbers of these illegal advertisers are so prominently displayed on the posters.

In this instance, the question has to be posed to the Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya because advertisements are regulated by by-laws made by local authorities pursuant to section 102(c) of the Local Government Act 1976 (Act 171).

Unless the penalties are expressly provided for in the relevant by-laws, section 119 of Act 171 provides that any person who is guilty of any offence against any by-law shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding RM2,000 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both.

However, more often than not, these offences are compoundable, and the culprits walk away by just paying a small compound fine.

To my mind, this is, in fact, an act of vandalism not dissimilar to acts like damaging and destroying property such as public phones and cars, and drawing graffiti on the walls and doors of toilets and lifts, both public and private.

In fact, a man was hauled up before a district court in Singapore last Thursday for scribbling words on a display wall outside Parliament House.

Koh Chan Meng, 47, was charged with vandalising the wall twice when he allegedly wrote on the wall, considered public property, the words "Hi Harry Lee I love you" and "Go sue me Lee Kuan Yew Go Gavin Son".

Harry Lee is Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.

If convicted, Koh could face mandatory whipping of at least three strokes of the cane on each charge in addition to a fine of up to S$2,000 (RM4,700) or imprisonment for up to three years.

Perhaps many would also not forget the case of an American teenager, Michael Fay, who was given four strokes of the cane in Singapore for car vandalism in 1994.

Both Fay and Koh were charged under Singapore's Vandalism Act, 1966.

The 1966 Act defines an "act of vandalism" as:

(a) in the case of public property, without the written authority of an authorised officer or representative of the government or statutory body or of any foreign government or of any armed force lawfully present in Singapore or in the case of private property, without the written consent of the owner or occupier:

(i) writing, drawing, painting, marking or inscribing on any public property or private property any word, slogan, caricature, drawing, mark, symbol or other thing;

(ii) affixing, posting up or displaying on any public property or private property any poster, placard, advertisement, bill, notice, paper or other document; or

(iii) hanging, suspending, hoisting, affixing or displaying on or from any public property or private property any flag, bunting, standard, banner or the like with any word, slogan, caricature, drawing, mark or symbol; or

(b) stealing, destroying or damaging any public property.

Section 3 of the 1966 Act imposes not only a fine not exceeding S$2,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, but mandatory whipping with not less than three strokes and not more than eight strokes of the cane.

However, whipping will not be imposed on a first conviction in respect of any act falling within paragraph (a) unless the act involved is an offence under paragraph (a)(i) above where the writing, drawing, mark or inscription is done with an indelible substance.

The above is indeed a comprehensive definition of an act of vandalism, and it is one legislation which has probably made Singapore such a clean country today.

However, in Malaysia, we do not have specific legislation to deal with vandalism.

Here, any act of damaging or destroying of property is considered as committing mischief under our Penal Code.

Section 426 of the Penal Code provides that anyone who commits mischief shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with a fine, or with both.

If the mischief causes loss or damage to the amount of RM25 or upwards, section 427 then increases the punishment to a term of imprisonment of up to two years.

Hence, the local authority by-laws and current Penal Code provisions are not adequate to come to grips with this anti-social behaviour which is fast becoming a menace.

The time has come for Parliament to introduce a specific legislation to combat vandalism so that our trees can be saved; our public amenities can be protected from damage and destruction and toilets and lifts in both public and private buildings can be kept clean.

Further, the costs expended in undoing acts of vandalism can be better chanelled to improving and upgrading our public amenities.

The new legislation can be modelled upon Singapore's Vandalism Act.

As whipping can be considered as too draconian or cruel a penalty, convicted vandals can instead be required to do mandatory community service in addition to a fine or a jail term.

Whatever it is, if we want a clean Malaysia, then something must be done quickly which can pose as a strong deterrent to acts of vandalism in this country.

Published in the New Sunday Times, 18 January 2009

Modern pig farming the solution

Old Macdonald had a farm
Ee-eye, ee-eye oh
And on that farm he had a pig
Ee-eye, ee-eye oh
With an oink, oink here
And an oink, oink there
Here an oink
There an oink
Everywhere an oink, oink
Old Macdonald had a farm
Ee-eye, ee-eye oh

Old Macdonald had a farm
Ee-eye, ee-eye oh
And on that farm he had a cow
Ee-eye, ee-eye oh
With a moo, moo here
And a moo, moo there
Here a moo
There a moo
Everywhere a moo, moo
Old Macdonald had a farm
Ee-eye, ee-eye oh

I USED to sing this nursery rhyme in primary school. I do not know whether this is still being sung in our schools today, but I certainly hope it is still being permitted.

But one thing is certain, if old Macdonald had a farm in Malaysia, he would not be able to keep both the pigs and the cows together.

The reason is that in a multi-religious country like ours, what we eat is an issue.

For the Muslims, the Quran as stated in Al-Baqarah 173 specifically mentions that a pig is haram and hence Muslims are forbidden from consuming pork.

So our government banned the 1995 Academy Award-winning Australian film, Babe, which tells the story of a pig which wants to be a sheepdog

To a Hindu, a cow is a sacred animal and while Hindus do not eat beef, they do drink cow's milk.

That is why Hindus protested when the Backbenchers Club, though done with good intentions, unwittingly undertook a mass slaughter of cows on the grounds of Parliament House last July.

As for a Chinese, he eats almost everything! As a Chinese saying goes, "A Chinese eats everything that has four legs, except tables; everything that flies, except airplanes; and, everything that is found on water, except boats".

Therefore, as we are sensitive to all religious groups, the Malaysian Bar has long stopped serving pork and beef at its functions. The same goes for shark's fin soup to appease the environmentalists.

Recently, pig farming has become a hot issue. But then, pig farming has been here for a long time. At one time, the pig population in Sepang outnumbered humans.

In fact, when my parents first came over from China in 1947, they settled down in Sepang as pig farmers until they moved to Yong Peng in 1958.

In the 1960s, when I was about 5-years-old, my parents still kept a sow behind the house. So did some of our neighbours.

There was one event which I still recall with much amusement. It was that of this cheeky-looking old man bringing his boar to mate with our sow -- a paid service though!

Those days, there was no such thing as transporting the boar on a vehicle. So, the old man had to leash the boar along the street which led to the pigsty.

Of course, if this were done today, it would probably cause a riot even though pigs are still kept as domestic animals in some remote areas of Sabah and Sarawak.

A story was also narrated to me of a senior Umno leader who stayed opposite a Chinese family in the kampung when he was a boy.

During some of the Chinese festivals, the Chinese neighbour would sacrifice a pig for prayers, with the pig's head pointing towards his house. It did not matter to him and his family then as it was tolerable conduct in those days.

But times have changed. The recent demonstration by hundreds of Muslim residents against the RM100 million pig farm project in Kuala Langat, Sepang, was understandable.

I am no expert on pig farming, but from the little I know, a pig produces three times more excrement than human beings do.

Over 90 per cent of the manure is water as half of a pig's body is made up of water. Only four to five per cent of the waste is solid material. This includes nitrogen, phosphorus and other organic materials.

As these omnivorous animals are prone to heat stress, pigs have to be washed regularly to cool them down. Therefore, how we control the discharge of effluent and waste water is important.

The traditional way was to use lagoons and small ponds located behind the farm to contain it, but the effluent still managed to escape into rivers and waterways.

Before the 1970s, most of the pig farms were sited far away from human populations. Today, it has obviously become not only an environmental problem, but a social one when rapid development brings the people closer to these farms.

Further, apart from the stench emanating from the waste, it also causes noise pollution as pig squeals can reach up to 112 decibels, about the same as a Boeing 747 jet at take-off. This is harmful to human hearing.

Secondly, the pig population multiplies fairly quickly. A sow can farrow a litter of up to 13 piglets after a gestation period of only 120 days.

Piglets can be sold after two months or so to restaurants for roasted suckling pigs.

Male pigs sold for meat are known as hogs, and they are usually neutered or castrated after a few weeks. The hogs are fully grown after five months and the life span of a pig is generally 10-15 years.

According to a study conducted by the Department of Veterinary Services in 2006, there are close to 900 pig farms, with a population of about 1.8 million pigs in Malaysia. This figure is small compared with countries like Thailand, which rears about 11.5 million pigs.

In fact, this RM2 billion industry is not without controversy, apart from being hit by diseases such as Japanese Encephalitis (JE) and the Nipah virus.

Two years back, pig farmers were accused of using the banned drug, beta-agonist, in their feed so that the pigs would mature faster and have a higher amount of lean meat.

This drug can cause palpitations, headaches and even death, especially in heart patients.

I am not suggesting that pig farming must now be outlawed. Given the political and economic considerations, this industry will stay, a reality which we have to accept.

However, it is a sensitive issue which all parties must look at rationally. To argue that pig farming ought to be abolished because one section of society does not consume pork is wholly flawed as the same argument can be applied to the rearing of cows for meat when beef is not consumed by another section of society.

The sad part of it is that for too long now, pig farming has been sorely neglected. The reason is obvious because, if not handled properly, a politician will be committing political suicide. So, if it is possible, most of them prefer to stay away from it rather than pluck up the courage to deal with it.

For decades, pig farms have been scattered here and there without any efficient or centralised facilities to treat pig waste.

As demand for pork increases, the discharge of waste correspondingly increases. Also, as land status over these farms is often unsettled and temporary, pig farmers are more motivated by greed and the need to make quick profits rather than investing monies for pollution control.

Indeed, in some countries like Singapore, an environmental levy was imposed on each pig towards a fund to help farmers construct high quality waste treatment facilities.

I visited a modern pig farm in Denmark in September 2000. When I reached the farm, the place looked more like a factory to me because the pigs were virtually out of sight.

Neither was there any odour and the effluent was efficiently treated. The pigs were housed indoors in properly ventilated, temperature-regulated and sound-proofed buildings. Each pig was confined to its individual stall. The workers were required to shower and cleanse their bodies before and after entering the building to prevent the spread of any swine disease to humans.

Such modernised pig farming will be ideal for our country environmentally and socially.

In this respect, it is hoped that right-thinking Malaysians will support any move by the government to implement this concept of centralised pig farming areas (PFAs), whereby existing pig farms can be relocated to a PFA.

I believe the Kuala Langat project is one such PFA, where modern and environmentally-friendly waste treatment techniques will be employed so that no effluent will escape into the rivers and waterways. The waste can also be converted into alternative energy and fertilisers.

By confining these animals indoors and out of sight of locals, it will also avert any confrontation between pigs and people.

I am confident that with greater public awareness and education, our people and pig farmers will be better informed and accept this win-win situation, devoid of any emotion.

It follows that if, according to Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, that the Kuala Langat project was initiated by the previous Selangor government, then the Barisan Nasional government ought be congratulated for this.

The new Selangor government too ought to be praised for having the gumption to continue with it.

Modern pig farms, such as those in Denmark, have shown that this can be a profitable and environmentally safe industry. At a pig farm in Ratchaburi, 130km south of Bangkok, pig waste is dried in the sun to be sold as organic fertiliser. Pig waste can also be processed to provide methane gas, used for cooking and generating power.