Letter to the Editor: Protect the Privacy of Aid Recipients

 

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF AID RECIPIENTS

 

The White Flag Campaign currently trending on social media to encourage people who are adversely affected by the Movement Control Order and corresponding restrictions on economic activities to seek help should be seen not as a cause of pride, but an indictment of the government of the day for its failure to provide assistance and support to the most vulnerable members of our community.

 

While we commend the many individuals and businesses that have stepped forward to provide food aid and monetary relief to the less fortunate, we must remember that it is our political leaders’ preoccupation with wresting power from one another, failure to plan ahead and to manage the Covid-19 outbreak, lack of empathy, and culture of impunity that got us to the point in which 468 suicides have already taken place in Malaysia from the short period between January and May 2021. Malaysians who were optimistic, compliant, and cooperative at the start of the pandemic in March 2020 have since found themselves out of savings, lacking a safety net, and out of options.

 

For this reason, the White Flag Campaign cannot be a reason for cheer and pride. Being in the position to alleviate the suffering of others should not be an opportunity for individuals, NGOs, businesses, or elected representatives to brag about their generosity. In an unequal and unjust society, mitigating inequality and injustice is the right thing to do, but is not an alternative for good governance. Just because some citizens are willing to extend help to other less fortunate citizens does not give political leaders the license to go traipsing on maskless durian parties and breach Covid-19 SOPs. We need to continue to hold our political leaders to account, even while we are reaching out to those who have fallen through the cracks.

 

It is in the interest of holding others and oneself to account that I strongly urge donors, elected representatives, and the media not to identify or post photographs of the aid recipients. Those who put up white flags outside their homes are already humiliated enough that they have to concede defeat and acknowledge that they are unable to carry on without the kindness of strangers. There is no need to exacerbate their shame and sense of helplessness and powerlessness further by identifying them by name and posting photographs of them and their homes. There is no pride to be derived from doing the most basic and human of things for someone in greater need than oneself. Being in a position of privilege should make us humbler and reflect more on how unequal our society is.

 

It is sufficient to identify the aid recipients as a “single mum” or “unemployed father of four” or “struggling hawker” to give their plight a human face. There is no need to name them and post photographs of them and strip them further of their dignity. Even when the aid recipient gives express consent to having their photos taken and shared publicly, this consent is often not given freely but under economic duress. A desperate parent who truly needs the food basket for his or her children will swallow his or her pride and agree to be photographed, but this will only add to the imbalance of power and their sense of vulnerability.

 

Further, we sometimes do not realise the full consequences of our actions. A homeless contract worker may face repercussions or even termination at work when an employer realises that the said worker is homeless. There is still a lot of stigma attached to homelessness and some employers see it as an indication that the employee could flee after committing misconduct and will not be easily traced or tracked down, instead of merely an indication that rent and home ownership is beyond the reach of many people working in the city. An aid recipient who is working at a low-paying job may face repercussions from his employer who views the white flag as an allegation that the employer is not paying its workers enough or as an attempt to embarrass the employer. There are just so many ways in which the action of flying the white flag or asking for help could be misinterpreted or judged. Even the Kedah MB and several other politicians have interpreted the white flag as an allegation that they have failed their constituents, and some of those who flew the white flag have reported facing harassment and intimidation as a result. Identifying these individuals by name and posting their photographs can only make things worse for them.

 

It is understood that many donors claim that they require photographs for accountability reasons when the funds come from different sources. Sometimes, well-meaning individuals pool together their money and assign a few members of the group to purchase and deliver the food aid and money. In such a situation, there are other ways of proving that the aid has reached the recipient. Those responsible for delivery should take photos of the record of funds collected, the items purchased, and the receipts. Then they can take photos of the volunteer(s) handing the food over, and the hands of the individuals who received the aid. If photos are taken of the recipient and his/her home, the considerate and responsible thing to do would be to blur out the recipient’s face, home address plaque, vehicle registration number, and anything else that can be used to identify the recipient (e.g. work uniform, t-shirt logo, children’s school uniforms) before posting or sharing the photos. The same rules apply to elected representatives delivering aid to their constituents – those who support you will believe that you provided aid even in the absence of corroborating evidence, and those who don’t support you will claim the pictures are doctored or staged, or that the recipient is undeserving even if you post the recipient’s entire family history and photo album online. So why subject the recipient to even more humiliation and harassment?  

 

The trouble with givers is that we like to imagine that our actions will inspire others to do the same. What we forget is that we can inspire and influence others without sharing photos and information that make the vulnerable even more vulnerable. Nobody likes to be identified as a charity case or an object of pity. If we want to uplift and help others, we need to do so in a way that respects, protects, and empowers them. If we want to create a spirit of solidarity and unity in society, we need to extend support and help to those in need without making them feel even more lacking in power, agency, and autonomy.

 

 

 

WONG EE LYNN

PETALING JAYA, SELANGOR

 

 

Letter to the Editor: Perhilitan Needs To Answer For The Killing Of Dusky Langurs

 

LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

PERHILITAN NEEDS TO ANSWER FOR THE KILLING OF DUSKY LANGURS

 

(Photo credits: The Vibes. Link to the original article by The Vibes here: https://www.thevibes.com/articles/news/28309/port-dickson-folk-livid-over-heartless-shooting-of-endangered-langurs) 

It is a cruel irony that on May 23, just one day after the International Day for Biological Diversity, which was observed and marked with a positive-sounding statement from the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP / Perhilitan), Perhilitan officers allegedly shot and killed 20 dusky langurs, which are classified as Protected Wildlife under the First Schedule of the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010, and as Endangered under the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

 

The outrage and horror of the public over the alleged killing of these dusky langurs in Port Dickson is justified and requires an official response from Perhilitan.

 

It is unfathomable that trained and armed wildlife officers called to assist with the problem of aggressive long-tailed macaques would be unable to tell the difference between the shy and retiring dusky langurs and the admittedly bolder macaques.

 

The shooting of the langurs appears to have been executed unprofessionally, as instead of being merciful and quick, the suffering and agony of the langurs were unnecessarily prolonged, as described in the testimony of eyewitnesses. The additionally brutal act of executing a mother langur and her baby in cold blood has further left citizens wondering if Perhilitan officers are able to evaluate what does or does not constitute a threat.

 

This unnecessary and vicious killing is not an isolated incident. The Perhilitan units in various states have a long history of being implicated in the killing of wild animals, many of which have not been proven to be threats to local residents. There is a report of Perhilitan Negeri Sembilan killing a peaceful herd of wild boars in October 2017, and even enabling a pack of hunting dogs to maul the wild piglets to death. In 2013, Aljazeera reported that Perhilitan culled 10,000 long-tailed macaques in 2012, and Perhilitan confirmed the existence of the culling operations even while acknowledging agricultural expansion and housing developments near forested areas to be the causes of human-macaque conflict. We must remember that the population of stray animals and wild species such as macaques explodes only when humans make changes to the environment and interfere with the lives of animals so significantly over a period of time that it changes the availability of food supply and the existence of predators and competitors of a particular species.

 

Ironically, the Director-General of Perhilitan had in an official pronouncement in March 2019 reminded the public not to kill or ill-treat wildlife, and warned the public that cruelty to wildlife is an offence under Section 86 of the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010. The D-G had also emphasized the need to protect wildlife and ensure the survival of endangered species, and sought the cooperation of the public to contact Perhilitan in the event of a human-wildlife conflict instead of taking matters into one’s own hands. Can we, the public, now invoke the same section to demand that the officers who had shot the langurs be prosecuted for cruelty to wildlife? Considering that even non-wildlife experts and local residents are able to tell that the langurs are not a threat to humans, can the Perhilitan officers really be said to have acted in good faith and to actually believe that they were carrying out their official duties to protect wildlife and mitigate human-wildlife conflict? If that were true, then perhaps a retraining of all Perhilitan officers is in order.

 

Even in the case of problem wildlife such as long-tailed macaques, wildlife experts concur that culling may not be the best solution, and should never be the first option. Culling could destroy biodiversity by harming unrelated species, for example, in the current case in which complaints were made about long-tailed macaques but it was ultimately the harmless and endangered langurs that were slain. Culling could result in unintended ecological consequences, for example, as in the now-famous anecdote of how China had, in 1949, culled sparrows as a disease prevention measure, which resulted in the destruction of crops by locusts as there were insufficient sparrows to keep the locusts in check. Culling may, in fact, lead to the increase in the population that the authorities is trying to cull, as can be seen in the case of the feral cat population in Tasmania. Scientists and animal behaviourists have observed that when older, dominant adult animals are killed, younger animals move in from the surrounding areas to replace the adult animals, as the older and more dominant adult animals are no longer around to kill or chase away the younger animals. Culling some animals from a ‘problematic’ colony also creates more space, food, and reproductive opportunities for the ones that remain, and within a short time, their population will bounce back to what it was pre-cull.

 

To reduce human-macaque conflict, developers need to build human homes further away from wildlife habitats and forest fringes, create buffer zones, and install security fences and monkey-proof garbage bins. Perhilitan needs to monitor areas with reported human-wildlife conflicts and enforce their threats to fine and punish people who feed wildlife. Without the wildlife feeders and easy availability of human-generated food waste, much of the conflict between humans and macaques could have been reduced.

 

Culling is cruel both to the humans who have to desensitize themselves to the pain and suffering of animals to perform this brutal act, and cruel to the animals who are often just the victims of their circumstances – wild boars and macaques, do not, after all, ask for housing areas or highways to be constructed through their habitats and do not ask to be fed. Translocation and relocation to national parks and forest reserves, sterilization of wild animals by qualified vets, and biological pest control by reintroducing the natural predators of an overpopulated species are all more humane, more sustainable, and more responsible options than culling, although more expensive and time-consuming initially. However, we owe it to the animals to at least find kinder and gentler resolutions to human-wildlife conflict, considering that the conflict is a manmade one.

 

Public confidence in Perhilitan as a wildlife protection agency is at an all-time low. Those of us working in the conservation and animal protection sectors have a difficult time convincing members of the public to report wildlife crimes and urban wildlife sightings to Perhilitan via its hotline numbers. This does not bode well for the future of wildlife conservation and rehabilitation in Malaysia, if the general response of the public is that they would rather condone the keeping of wildlife as pets or release captured wild animals themselves than refer the matter to the country’s only official agency responsible for the protection and conservation of wildlife. The D-G of Perhilitan needs to investigate the killing of the langurs immediately and come up with new SOPs for dealing with human-wildlife conflict to restore public confidence in the agency. Members of the public will also need to play their part in learning to coexist with local fauna and reduce the risk of human-wildlife conflicts instead of reporting encounters with wildlife as problems to be dealt with and eliminated.

 

 

 

WONG EE LYNN

PETALING JAYA, SELANGOR

 

Letter to the Editor: Biodiversity Loss A Cause For Alarm

 

LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

BIODIVERSITY LOSS A CAUSE FOR ALARM

 

(Image credits: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-malaysia-palmoil-deforestation-idUSKCN1VD0CR)

The recent report that a total of 567 plant species out of the 1,600 Peninsular Malaysia plant species assessed in the Malaysia Red List have been classified as threatened should be a cause for alarm.

 

Malaysia’s tree cover, which stands at approximately 55.3%, obscures the alarming reality of biodiversity loss in Malaysia, but the fact remains that tree cover is not the same as natural forest cover. Most of Malaysia’s tree cover consists of plantations and degraded forest land. Plantations do not have the same biodiversity value and cannot provide the same ecosystem services as natural forests. Intact and biodiverse forests protect watersheds and water quality, are more resistant to fire and drought, regulate climate and weather patterns, and provide habitat for a wide range of flora and fauna.

 

Biodiversity ensures food security, as a biodiverse ecosystem will provide genetic resources for a variety of food, including those that are resistant to fungi and diseases that may wipe out cultivated strains of crops. Keeping forests intact and biodiverse prevents wild species from crossing into human habitation and spreading both known and new diseases to domestic animals and humans, and thus protect biosecurity. Approximately 50,000 to 70,000 plant species are used by humans for traditional and modern medicine worldwide. Biodiversity loss will limit the discovery of potential new medicines and medical treatments.

 

Humans rely on the ecosystem services such as the supply of clean air and water provided by healthy and biodiverse ecosystems. The National Water Resources Study 2000-2050 warns that Kedah, Kuala Lumpur, Melaka, Penang, Perlis, Putrajaya, and Selangor are at risk of water deficits, partly due to the loss of vital water catchment areas, and partly due to poor water management systems and habits.  

 

The UN FAO reports that only 18.7% of forests in Malaysia is classified as primary forest, the most biologically diverse and carbon-dense ecosystem, and that only 11.6% of the forests in Malaysia is classified as ‘pristine’.

 

Malaysia is rapidly losing forested areas to agriculture and development, and state governments continue to degazette forest reserves and issue logging permits with impunity. The requirement that states gazette replacement sites for degazetted reserves does nothing to turn the tide of biodiversity loss. States are running out of suitable sites to gazette as replacement forest reserves, and further, the gazettement of secondary forests and degraded land cannot be a substitute for the protection of natural and intact forests.

 

Google’s global forest map reveals that between 2000 and 2012, Malaysia had the world’s highest deforestation rate at 14.4%. Satellite data from the Carnegie Landsat Analysis System-lite platform shows that over 80% of the rainforests in East Malaysia have already been logged.

 

Between 2000 and 2009, over 9,000 hectares of Permanent Forest Reserves were degazetted in Malaysia, threatening watersheds and carbon sequesters, and destroying flora and fauna including those classified as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List. The degazettement of the Bikam Permanent Forest Reserve in 2013 caused the extinction of the Keruing Paya, a critically endangered hardwood tree, in Peninsular Malaysia.

 

The best way to mitigate biodiversity loss is by protecting existing forests. One of the main problems why forest conservation is so challenging in Malaysia is that the Federal Constitution gives states jurisdiction over their land, water, and forests. Forestry revenue accrues to the state government and not to the federal government, and as such, forests and extraction-based industries such as logging and mining are a major source of revenue for state governments seeking short-term gain.

 

Government agencies set up to manage forests see forests not as sensitive ecosystems to be protected, but as resources for socioeconomic development. However, the economic benefits of logging and mining are short-lived and can sustain only 1-2 generations at most. State governments stand to lose more from the loss of forests and the ecosystem services they provide. Droughts, floods, soil erosion, landslides, and health crises such as dengue and malaria outbreaks will all cost the state and federal governments more in the long run. We need to stop relying on commodity crops and extraction-based industries as our primary source of revenue. If we build a knowledge and skills-based economy and stop relying on monoculture crops and extraction-based industries as our country’s primary source of revenue and jobs, we can find better ways of sustaining our economy.

 

We need to rid ourselves of the mentality that the loss of threatened tree species does not affect us, or that it can be rectified through tree-planting campaigns and gazetting degraded land as replacement forest reserves. Tree-planting campaigns, habitat restoration, the setting up of seed banks, and environmental education for the younger generation, all take time to bear results. And time is a luxury that threatened species do not have. Biodiversity is not merely something that is nice to have, but essential to the survival of humanity and a living planet.

 

WONG EE LYNN

PETALING JAYA, SELANGOR

 

 

 

Letter to the Editor: End Deforestation Before Embarking On Tree-Planting Campaigns

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

END DEFORESTATION BEFORE EMBARKING ON TREE-PLANTING CAMPAIGNS

It is difficult for environmentalists not to respond with scepticism to the Prime Minister’s 100 Million Tree Planting Campaign. While it is heartening to see that the government acknowledges climate change to be a real and imminent threat, the actions of those in power thus far are not consistent with environmental protection, climate mitigation, or biodiversity preservation. 

The PM claims that Malaysia has forest cover of 55.3%, which is wildly inaccurate as it includes plantations, which consist of monoculture crops that rely on large quantities of synthetic herbicides, insecticides, bactericides, and fertilisers in order to thrive. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation reported Malaysia’s primary forest cover to be at 18.7% in 2010, and it has decreased since then. Tree cover is not the same as forest cover, and not everything that puts out roots and leaves is automatically beneficial to the environment. Old-growth forests store carbon for centuries, whereas plantations constitute net emitters of carbon due to the disturbance of the soil and degradation of the previous ecosystem. Plantations cannot be classified as forests, and they are in fact a direct threat to forests due to the fact that forests are cleared for agricultural expansion. For the sake of scientific accuracy and for this massive tree-planting campaign to be an actual climate mitigation strategy, this inventory of 100 million trees must necessarily exclude plantation trees. 

While a tree-planting campaign of this magnitude sounds good in theory, the Perikatan Nasional government does not have a credible environmental track record. Just days before the announcement of the 100 Million Tree Planting Campaign, the Kedah government proposed to log 25,000 hectares of the Ulu Muda forest, which is a vital water catchment area and biodiversity hotbed. Further, there are recent reports of logging in the vicinity of the Jerantut Tambahan Forest Reserve and Lesung Permanent Forest Reserve, among other forest reserves. Things in Pakatan Nasional controlled states are not much better, as the Selangor State Government is adamant about proceeding with its plans to degazette and destroy the Kuala Langat North Forest Reserve. Based on these precedents, it is difficult to believe that the government is in any way committed to protecting the environment. 

Planting trees make up only a partial solution to the effects of deforestation. A better, less expensive, and less quixotic option would be to end or at least reduce deforestation. Let us remember that mature trees offset far greater amounts of carbon dioxide than young trees. A tree will only begin to be effective in absorbing carbon in its tenth year, so planting trees as a climate mitigation strategy is not going to produce the results we want to see within our lifetimes. Intact forests provide many ecosystem services that newly-planted trees can’t. Researchers from 15 countries published their findings in Nature in 2014 that old trees not only store carbon and prevent it from escaping into the atmosphere, but actively convert carbon dioxide from the air into their trunks, branches, and leaves, a feat that is not replicated by young trees. Currently, the Earth’s forests and soil absorb about 30% of atmospheric carbon emissions. Mature and biodiverse forests store carbon, recycle water, prevent erosion, harbour biodiversity, and improve air and water quality. When trees are cut down, years of a forests’ stored carbon are released back into the atmosphere. When we plant forests, we gain some of the benefits that forests provide, but it takes decades to grow a healthy forest, and humanity is running out of time. 

I can see the appeal of a massive tree-planting campaign to those in power. It creates the appearance that the government is doing something proactive to protect the environment, and also creates public relations opportunities for corporations, particularly those in polluting and destructive sectors such as construction, property development, and oil and gas, to perform a corporate social responsibility exercise to improve their image. Before we embark on this ambitious and expensive campaign, however, it would be good to know what plans the government and its corporate partners have beyond planting trees. Planting millions of trees is the easy part. Tracking these trees and ensuring the young trees’ survival is the challenging part. Mega tree-planting efforts in India, Turkey, and Ethiopia record the number of saplings planted, but are unable to provide accurate and adequate information about the survival rate of these saplings. What makes us think that Malaysia is going to be the exception, given our society’s poor maintenance culture? Tree-planting campaigns are also a cop-out for governments and corporations because it is a way of avoiding having to address more serious environmental issues such as deforestation, pollution, mining, and other destructive activities. 

By all means, we should plant as many new trees as possible, especially native trees that provide food and shelter for native fauna. However, we need to stop pretending that it will solve the environmental problems caused by weak governance, greed, and the prioritising of short-term benefits over environmental integrity. If the PM truly cares about “greening Malaysia” and our trees, as he had claimed, he would start by putting a halt to deforestation and the degazettement of forest reserves. 

WONG EE LYNN

PETALING JAYA

Letter to the Editor: Racist Statements Cowardly, Irresponsible, and Unprofessional

 

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

RACIST STATEMENTS COWARDLY, IRRESPONSIBLE, AND UNPROFESSIONAL

 

Nary a month goes by in Malaysia without a politician making a racially-charged statement and then attempting to defend or justify it. More exasperating still is how these politicians manage to get away with impunity, and how the Prime Minister and party leaders ignore or downplay the incidents.

 

Anyone can tell that Kedah Menteri Besar Muhammad Sanusi Mohd Nor’s crass and unfunny remarks that MIC Deputy President M Saravanan and DAP’s Deputy Penang Chief Minister II P Ramasamy are “drunk on the toddy of popularity” and “acting drunk on three bottles after consuming only one” were intended to stoke racial hatred, because they are unrelated to the issue at hand. If the MB had no intention of being racist, then the analogy of being drunk on toddy would never have been used. He knew very well that the insult would not have the same effect on people of other ethnicities. His insult was illogical and irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is as follows: Why was the Hindu temple demolished when the Kedah MB had previously given his express assurance to the Unity Minister and MIC leaders that all relevant parties would be consulted and notified before the destruction of any houses of worship? MIC’s, DAP’s, and the local Hindu communities’ assertions were that the demolition was unfair and not done according to due process, and not that they, the MIC and DAP representatives, were popular, teetotallers, or sober, so why was it necessary to invoke the topic of alcohol consumption and toddy?

 

A leader of calibre would be able to respond to the questions raised, demonstrate knowledge and fairness, and defend his or her decision without having to resort to personal or racial attacks and irrelevant insults. Making a racist statement is a distraction tactic. The MB knew that it would outrage his critics who are of Indian ethnicity, and at the same time it would win him support from certain segments of society who would then see him as a ‘defender of the race and faith.’ However, one cannot defend one’s race and faith by insulting other races and faiths. One can only uplift one’s race, faith, and society through good deeds and by conducting oneself with integrity and competence.

 

In any civilised society and in the eyes of any person with a sense of fairness and integrity, acts such as corruption, abuse of power, and violations of the human rights of minorities are far bigger crimes and sins than the consumption of alcohol. One is not by default a morally upright person merely because one does not consume alcohol. Not all non-Muslims consume alcohol, not all who consume alcohol become intoxicated, and not all who become intoxicated cause harm to others. Consuming alcohol in a social or celebratory setting is a harmless activity in many cultures around the world. To assume that someone who is not of the same race or faith as you is somehow morally inferior to you is a sign of ignorance and immaturity.

 

In his address to the nation in March this year, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin vowed to be a “Prime Minister for all Malaysians”. Yet his silence and inaction on the recent statements of the Kedah MB as well as previous incidents, for example, that of Baling MP Abdul Azeez against Batu Kawan MP Kasthuri Patto, show that he has no plans to follow up on his vow.

 

Each time a politician makes an insulting statement of a racial or religious nature, there will be a short-lived outcry from the public and politicians from other parties. We will then remind the perpetrator that there are over 40 different ethnic groups in Malaysia, that we are a multiracial and multifaith society, that non-Malays also played a role in securing the Independence of the then Malaya from Britain, that non-Malays also play a significant role in nation-building, pay a disproportionately large percentage of taxes, and serve in the civil service and security forces. To dismiss and disrespect the needs and wishes of such a significant percentage of the population is arrogant, dangerous, unfair, and irresponsible. But the cycle of racist verbal abuse resumes each time accountability is demanded of particular politicians. MP Kasthuri Patto was insulted when she asked about the lack of female representation in the Parliamentary Select Committee. M Saravanan and Dr P Ramasamy were insulted when they queried the Kedah MB on the demolition of the temple. Any rational voter can see that these politicians resorted to racially-charged insults when they are not able to show accountability and respond to their political opponents’ queries. The only reason these racist statements were made was to make the persons at the receiving end feel disrespected and unwelcome. The PM and party leaders need to end their silence and complicity in this culture of systemic racism and the use of racist language and hate speech to harass ethnic minorities and political opponents, not merely because politicians and citizens from minority groups deserve better, but because you need to prove to everyone – both those from majority groups and those from minority groups – that you are capable of decency and fair play.

 

WONG EE LYNN

PETALING JAYA

 

Letter to the Editor: Make A Stand Against Racism and Sexism

LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

MAKE A STAND AGAINST RACISM AND SEXISM 

It is correct, proper, and just that the honourable Speaker of the House Datuk Azhar Azizan Harun demanded that Baling MP Abdul Azeez retract his racist and sexist comments made on 13 July against Batu Kawan MP Kasthuri Patto. The decision should have been made more swiftly and decisively to prove Parliament’s unambiguous stand against racially and sexually derogatory language and conduct, and commitment to upholding a certain standard of decency and fair play. 

The purpose and intent of the doctrine of parliamentary privilege is to protect the freedom of parliamentarians to discuss sensitive or controversial issues that may affect laws or the running of a country. It is not intended to protect offensive and persecutory language designed to harass or intimidate political opponents and stymie actual debate and discussion. 

An elected representative who is a repeat offender should therefore face harsher sanctions than a mere retraction of the last offensive statement made. 

Abdul Azeez’s conditional apology is not an apology but an attempt to deflect blame and paint himself as a victim. His claim that he could not possibly be racist or be discriminatory against someone of dark complexion because he is himself of dark complexion cannot be accepted as sincere or truthful. Racism and colour discrimination can be internalised even by those from ethnic minorities or of dark complexion, just as misogyny can be internalised by women through years of social conditioning. 

His claim that he did not intend to be racist also cannot be accepted by any rational person. What other purpose could he have for heckling another elected representative by making fun of her skin colour? If it were indeed true that the seat Kasthuri Patto was sitting in was dimly lit, and Abdul Azeez had no intention of practicing racism or colour discrimination, he would not have asked her to “put on some powder”, but would instead invite her to step forward or present her views from a more brightly-lit area. Instead, his comments that she is “too dark and cannot be seen” and that she should “put on some powder” in order to make herself visible are malicious and intended to ridicule, humiliate, and intimidate a female elected representative as she was raising the very pertinent issue of the lack of female representation in the Select Committee. 

The question to be asked is not whether: “Is Abdul Azeez also of dark complexion?” but “Would he have uttered a similarly disparaging remark to someone of a fairer skin colour?”. The answer is necessarily no, because fair skin is not an object of ridicule and would not have the intended effect of silencing and humiliating the person being teased. 

The next question is “Would he have uttered similar words to another man, that he should somehow alter his physical appearance to make himself more attractive or visible?” The answer is again, no. Men have a long history of talking over women and interrupting or attempting to silence women with offensive and derogatory words often irrelevant to the issue at hand, designed to attack women’s femininity or physical appearance, to make women feel unwelcome and disrespected. This is simply not done to other men, except men who are disabled or who are seen as less masculine than the average man. 

The third question would be “Would he have uttered such words to someone belonging to a majority ethnicity or group, or someone who holds more political or social power than he does?” The answer again is no, because there would be grave repercussions for doing so, and Abdul Azeez’s history in politics indicates that he does not pick on those who hold the majority of support and power. Thus his words and conduct clearly constitute an act of punching down. Parliamentary privilege should never be extended to acts of punching down designed to harass and intimidate other elected representatives and stop useful and constructive debate. 

Elected representatives need to face serious repercussions for hate speech and offensive and discriminatory language and conduct. We have the right to hold them to a higher moral standard because we elected them to represent our values and interests. They should be subjected to greater scrutiny than the average citizen and be made accountable for their words and actions. 

Other elected officials should demonstrate that they are good allies who are capable of making a stand against injustice, inequality, and discrimination, by speaking up against racism and sexism, and standing up for another person facing bullying and unfair attacks, no matter which political party he or she is from. This is not because the tables could be turned one day and you could find yourself sitting on the Opposition bench, but because standing up for someone who is unfairly treated is the decent, just, and responsible thing to do. Your political views can differ from that of someone else, but you need to stand up for someone who is being unfairly treated or ridiculed based on his or her gender, race, faith, skin colour, physical attributes, or other vulnerability. This will persuade us that we, the electorate, have made the right choice in electing and supporting you, and that you are a representative who will protect and assist everyone, especially the marginalised and vulnerable. 

We need to take a stronger and more decisive stand against racism and sexism as a society. We know that it happens to women and people of different races in different settings – when it comes to the hiring of workers, the selection of tenants, or the treatment of employees and customers, for instance. We know that some categories of people are more susceptible to discrimination and unfair treatment than others, and we need to make it clear that it is unacceptable and we will not participate in the discrimination. We need to have the courage to say to someone in a position of power or privilege: “That sounded rather unkind”, “That doesn’t seem fair to me”, “It is only fair that we meet this applicant and interview him/her first”, “She/he is not done talking, please let her continue”, “She/he has a point, let’s hear it from her/him.” We need to centre and amplify the voices of those who are not heard and who had not enjoyed the same privileges and opportunities that we had. Just because we are not participating in the act of bullying or discrimination does not mean we are not complicit in systemic sexism, racism, and discrimination against those who hold less political and social power than we do. It is time for all of us to listen, learn, and change. And this change includes rejecting and voting out politicians whose values are not consistent with those of an equitable, just, and progressive society. 

WONG EE LYNN 

PETALING JAYA

Letter to the Editor: Short-Term Thinking Is Destroying Malaysian Rainforests

LETTER TO THE EDITOR 

SHORT-TERM THINKING IS DESTROYING MALAYSIAN RAINFORESTS 

The Kedah State Government’s rush to resume logging activities in the Greater Ulu Muda Forest and the Terengganu State Government’s decision to degazette the Belara Forest Reserve to make way for plantations are proof that politicians are incapable of thinking of the long-term consequences of their decisions or prioritising the future of the Planet and country. 

Upon the conclusion of each General Election, politicians and state governments proceed with indecent haste to degazette and log forested areas and exploit natural resources before they get voted out in the subsequent elections. Clearly the lessons taught by the COVID-19 pandemic on the importance of preserving ecological balance and biodiversity are lost on Malaysian political leaders, who are wired for instant gratification and not long-term thinking. 

In theory, logging may appear to be a sustainable activity and timber may appear to be a renewable resource. However, this is no longer the case in countries such as Malaysia due to diminishing forests and the overexploitation of forests and forest products. 

The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations reports that Malaysia has seen a 60% decline in log exports since 1980 due to the decline in harvestable forest products. Surely there are enough clear indicators that the overharvesting of timber and forest products in the short term will lead to a greater loss of potential earnings in the long run, while increasing the risk of environmental disasters. 

In spite of the fact that forests are made up of flora and fauna that are capable of propagation and regeneration, tropical rainforests are hardly the renewable resources that politicians take them for. Primary forests are complex and fragile ecosystems. Once disturbed for logging, quarrying, or agricultural activities, secondary forest species and recolonisers such as fast-growing climbing plants and epiphytes grow in the clearings created by human activity. Over time, these recolonisers overtake the primary rainforest species in their numbers and affect the composition and biodiversity of a forest, changing its very nature, and increasing the risk of mass extinction of thousands of species. 

Disturbed and cleared rainforests, even if fortunate enough not to be clear-cut and converted into plantations, quarries, or dams, end up becoming unproductive wastelands that are incapable of supporting wildlife or providing the same variety of ecosystem services, such as flood mitigation and carbon sequestration, as primary rainforests. The reduced ability of a cleared or decimated forest to absorb solar energy and release water vapour leads to higher temperatures and a decline in rainfall. 

The Greater Ulu Muda Forest, for instance, is a critical water catchment area for the northern states of Kedah, Perlis and Penang and supplies water to, among others, the Ahning, Muda and Pedu Dams. Ulu Muda further provides economic and sociocultural services which include ecotourism, the harvesting of forest products, and a home for indigenous and rural communities. According to the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) Malaysia, the Ulu Muda forest complex supplies as much as 96% of Kedah’s, 50% of Perlis’ and 80% of Penang’s water supply. In addition to providing water for domestic, industrial and agricultural use, Ulu Muda also provides vital ecological services such as climate regulation, soil erosion prevention, biodiversity conservation and maintenance of soil, water and air quality. 

The 2016 drought affecting the northern states of Peninsular Malaysia is directly linked to logging activities in the Ulu Muda forest complex, which affected climate and water cycle patterns, resulting in a massive decline in dam water levels and a postponement of the paddy planting season. Logging in Ulu Muda would affect the survival and food and water security of a significant percentage of the population of Northern Peninsular Malaysia. Is the Kedah State Government prepared to deal with the environmental and economic fallout of the deforestation of Ulu Muda? 

As for the Belara Forest Reserve, this lowland tropical rainforest which is home to Great Hornbills and other vulnerable and endangered species was surreptitiously degazetted to make way for palm oil plantations. We can already foresee some of the immediate adverse impacts of the degazettement and deforestation. Orchard owners whose fruit orchards surround the Belara Forest Reserve will see reduced yield, and more contamination of soil and water due to the agricultural chemicals used in conventional oil palm cultivation. When forests are cleared, malaria and dengue infections will rise. Landslides and flash floods will be a common occurrence, as ground cover crops are eliminated in monoculture plantations. Perhaps there will be another disastrous flood, more severe than the one that destroyed much of the East Coast in the monsoon season of 2014-2015. Is that the price the people of Terengganu are willing to pay for a few extra jobs that come with the opening up of new plantations? Is the Terengganu State Government willing to bear the healthcare costs of mosquito-borne diseases and respiratory illnesses arising from haze and poorer air quality? Does the State Government have plans to deal with increased human-wildlife conflict and water and food insecurity following deforestation, floods, drought, and haze? 

Until State Governments can explain such plans to us in detail and persuade us that they are equipped to handle the loss and damage arising from the loss of forests, they cannot be said to be acting in the best interests of the state or its citizens, and their actions therefore lack moral and political legitimacy.  

Politicians need to be able to look beyond the next 5-10 years and think about the future of the country in the next 50-100 years. Politicians who put short-term personal benefits above long-term environmental protection and the well-being, health, and safety of its citizens have no place in a responsive and democratic society. 

WONG EE LYNN 

PETALING JAYA

Letter to the Editor: Keep Forests Intact To Prevent Disease Outbreaks

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: 

KEEP FORESTS INTACT TO PREVENT DISEASE OUTBREAKS 

For years, scientists have been trying to warn us that deforestation will unleash infectious diseases onto human populations, but this has been conveniently ignored by politicians wanting to make a quick profit from issuing licences for logging and agricultural expansion. Scientists from all over the world, including disease ecologists at Ecohealth Alliance who are studying malaria in East Malaysia, warn that human activities in forested areas, such as forest-clearing, road-building, mining, hunting, and logging, cause major disruptions to ecosystems, which then causes diseases to spread from their natural wild hosts to new hosts, including humans. International travel then helps some of these diseases spread to other countries and continents, causing significant damage to human health and economies. 

It is not merely the act of killing and consuming wildlife that contributes to the rise of zoonoses, namely, diseases that jump species from animals to humans. The mere act of rapid forest clearing, even without the hunting and poaching of wildlife that usually accompanies encroachment into forests, is enough to trigger chains of events that create the right conditions for deadly infectious diseases to spread to domestic animals and nearby human populations. 

Even as far back as the 1990s, epidemiologists at the University of Florida’s Emerging Pathogens Institute found a link between forest clearing in the Peruvian Amazon and the rise in malaria cases. The Journal of Emerging Infectious Diseases has documented the steep increase in malaria cases in areas in East Malaysia where forested land has been cleared for agriculture. Mosquitoes and other pathogens proliferate in forest edges where the boundaries between human habitation and forested areas become blurred, and primates and other disease carriers wander into human habitation. 

There are countless examples of direct pathogen spillover from wildlife to humans arising from forest clearing, hunting, poaching, and encroachment of agriculture and farmed animals into forests. Deforestation in South America is a factor in the transmission of rabies by vampire bats to cattle and humans. The Kyasanur Forest disease outbreak came after the encroachment of cattle and farms into Indian forests. The clearing of forests in Liberia for oil palm cultivation attracted forest-dwelling mice which then gave rise to the Lassa Virus when humans came in contact with the faeces or urine of the mice. The Nipah Virus outbreak in 1999 was caused by rampant deforestation in Indonesia which resulted in fruit bats losing their forest habitat and venturing into farms in Malaysia, where they inadvertently spread the virus to pigs, which then jumped species to humans. HIV is believed to have arisen from the hunting of primates in central African forests. Ebola has been associated with hunting in Gabon and the Republic of Congo. 

This does not mean that we need to clear forests and kill wildlife in order to eradicate disease. Many of these viruses exist harmlessly with their forest-dwelling host animals, because the animals have co-evolved with these viruses. It is human activity that make humans unwitting hosts for these viruses and other pathogens. 

To protect national and global biosecurity, it is imperative that we protect our forests and keep forests intact. Intact forests protect watersheds and water quality, are more resistant to fire and drought, regulate climate and weather patterns, provide habitat for a wide range of flora and fauna, and prevent wild species from crossing into human habitation and spreading both known and new diseases to domestic animals and humans. 

Keeping forests intact provide more economic benefits over the long term than clearing forests for agriculture and timber extraction. The economic benefits of logging are short-lived and can sustain only 1-2 generations at most. Intact forests absorb approximately 25% of the world’s human-generated carbon emissions and sequester far more carbon than logged, degraded, or planted forests. For generations, forested ecosystems have provided society with medicinal plants and compounds, and these medically-relevant species are often lost when forests are cleared, fragmented, or replaced with farms and monoculture plantations. Cleared and fragmented forests are less resilient to fire and drought, and the haze caused by forest and peat fires cause governments grave economic loss and increase healthcare costs. 

A 2016 Harvard University study published in Environmental Research Letters reported that the 2015 human-caused forest fires in Indonesia caused more than 100,000 premature deaths across Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore. Can Malaysia keep on bearing the loss of human lives and increased healthcare costs arising from forest loss and declining air quality? 

Ecohealth Alliance calculated that the Malaysian government spends around USD5,000 to treat each new malaria patient in East Malaysia. The healthcare costs of testing and screening individuals for COVID-19 and of hospitalizing and treating COVID-19 patients in Malaysia have not been disclosed yet, but we can assume it is tremendous, even before taking into account economic stimulus packages and financial aid for vulnerable groups. Can Malaysia bear the healthcare and socio-economic costs of managing and mitigating future zoonotic outbreaks arising from deforestation and human-wildlife interactions? 

We know the answer is no, yet the continued destruction of Malaysia’s tropical rainforests and natural environment indicates that our leaders have not learned their lesson. State governments continue to degazette forest reserves and issue logging permits with impunity, and politicians from both sides of the political divide rush to fill their personal coffers before they get voted out at the next General Elections with nary a thought for the environment, wildlife, or rural and indigenous communities. 

Even as the nation is still reeling from the economic shock of the Movement Control Order, and COVID-19 infection rates and deaths continue to increase daily, the Selangor State Government has decided to proceed with the degazettement of the Kuala Langat North Forest Reserve without giving environmental organisations and the affected local and Orang Asli communities the opportunity to consult, discuss, provide feedback, and prepare for a public inquiry on the degazettement proposal. Such cavalier disregard for the environment and for the voices of concerned citizens show how little our political leaders care about protecting biodiversity, safeguarding biosecurity, and mitigating climate change. This will return to haunt us in the form of droughts, floods, water and food insecurity, increased carbon emissions, poorer air quality, more human-wildlife conflicts, and the rise in tropical diseases. 

As a propitiatory gesture, the Selangor Menteri Besar has offered to replace the degazetted area with a ‘bigger area’ in Kuala Selangor, Sabak Bernam, and Hulu Selangor as a substitute forest reserve. This mindset is problematic, as the biodiversity and complexity of natural forests and the ecosystem services they provide cannot be replicated or replaced so easily. We are rapidly losing forested areas to agriculture and development, and states will soon run out of suitable sites to gazette as replacement forest reserves. Tree-planting activities and the gazettement of secondary forests and degraded land cannot be a substitute for the protection of natural and intact forests for all the reasons listed above. 

Science News and Global Biodefense have already identified Malaysia as the next ground zero for malaria infections. Global disease surveillance network USAID PREDICT has in 2017 identified at least 48 new viruses in Malaysian rainforest species, and only time will tell which of these viruses will be the next to jump species to humans. Considering the current rate of deforestation, our country will be susceptible to many types of tropical and zoonotic diseases. Malaysia is currently still doing its best to contain the number of COVID-19 infections and deaths. It will take us months to deal with the socio-economic fallout of COVID-19. If we don’t move fast to halt deforestation and protect our natural forests, we must then prepare to face the next zoonotic outbreak, and the ones after, that will arise from our callous disregard for the environment. 

WONG EE LYNN 

PETALING JAYA, SELANGOR 

(Photo credits: Wikipedia.org)

Letter to the Editor: Zoonoses and Disease Outbreaks - It's Time We Take A Closer Look At Animal Agriculture, Not Just The Wildlife Trade

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

ZOONOSES AND DISEASE OUTBREAKS: IT’S TIME WE TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT ANIMAL AGRICULTURE, NOT JUST THE WILDLIFE TRADE 

The international community heaved a collective sigh of relief when China announced a ban, albeit temporary, on wildlife trade in an effort to contain the 2019-nCoV coronavirus (Jan 26). Environmental and wildlife conservation groups both outside and within China wasted no time in urging China to make the ban permanent, citing the protection of human health, biodiversity, and wildlife populations as the reason. 

It would be commendable if China were to codify and enforce a permanent ban on wildlife consumption and trade, but in the meantime, a temporary ban would help contain further spread of the virus and give some measure of protection for wildlife. Yet the recent plaudits for China’s bold move is marred by the fact that until the announcement was made, the outrage and vitriol directed at China by the media and international community smacks of double standards, hypocrisy, racial malice, and schadenfreude. 

The media and international community persuaded itself that China’s predilection for consuming wildlife and exotic meats is the reason why it does not deserve its recent wealth and rise as a world superpower, and that its citizens deserve to suffer for their barbarism and dirty and uncivilised ways. If the international community were really so concerned about wildlife conservation and biodiversity, we would see the same level of outrage over fox hunting in the United Kingdom, the USA’s trophy hunting industry, the systematic hunting of minke whales by Norway, Australia’s kangaroo meat industry, and Canada’s annual slaughter of seals and sea lions. Yet for the most part, these countries have been able to carry on exploiting and killing wildlife with relative impunity, and these activities are passed off as being civilised, sophisticated, or an economic or environmental necessity. 

The fact that some countries with a longstanding culture of exploiting, killing, and consuming wildlife have managed to avoid being the country of origin of zoonotic disease outbreaks, while other countries suffer huge losses from the same, indicates that there is more we have yet to learn about the wildlife trade, the spread of pathogens, and ways to contain and control disease outbreaks. 

It would be neat and convenient indeed if the blame for the 2019-nCoV coronavirus outbreak could be placed squarely on Wuhan’s wildlife markets. However, scientists are still struggling to pinpoint the original host of the virus and how it first infected people. The premature blaming of snakes and bats as the original hosts of the virus shows us how truly novel this coronavirus is and how little we know about it, and indeed, about other zoonotic diseases. Until today, the scientific and medical community have yet to be able to confirm that Ebola originated from bats. 

This leaves us with two issues to be addressed, namely, that: 

(1) Wildlife needs to be protected in and of itself, and measures must be taken by all countries to end wildlife trade, ban the exploitation and killing of wildlife, and halt the destruction of wildlife habitats, whether or not the killing of any particular species or population has an adverse impact on human health and safety; and 

(2) In order to protect human health, we need to protect animal health and welfare. To do so, we need to stop scapegoating citizens of developing nations who consume wildlife and bushmeat, and instead, examine how intensive animal agriculture and low animal welfare standards have directly resulted in threats to human health, safety, and well-being. 

Following China’s official announcement linking the virus to Wuhan’s wildlife markets, social media was rife with comments such as “Why can’t they just be civilised and eat domestic farmed animals like the rest of us?”, “Serves them right for eating endangered animals instead of animals raised for food!”, and even “Eat more chicken and beef!”, as if eating farmed meat could miraculously inoculate humans against zoonotic diseases. 

History has shown us repeatedly that not only does eating farmed meat not inoculate humans against diseases, but that intensive animal agriculture is a major driver of zoonosis and disease outbreaks. 

If zoonotic diseases such as SARS, Ebola, West Nile Virus, Nipah Virus, Avian Influenza, and 2019-nCoV were merely transmitted to those who directly handle and consume wildlife, they would not have had the pandemic effects that they did. But wildlife diseases can and do afflict domestic animals, and cross species to humans with alarming rapidity. Farm animals frequently become intermediate or amplifier hosts for pathogens. 

Researchers, including those from the Centre for Global Health Science and Security of Georgetown University, Washington DC, estimate that 70% of zoonotic diseases come from wildlife, and then made the leap from wildlife to humans. Deforestation and human encroachment into previously forested areas for agriculture have been identified as factors in the spread of zoonosis, as farm and domestic animals come into contact with wildlife and wild birds. The crowded and unhealthy conditions in factory farms then expedite the spread of viruses such as Avian Influenza, and bacterial pathogens, such as E. coli, Campylobacter and salmonella. The Japanese Encephalitis Virus, for instance, was transmitted by the Culex mosquito (which usually feeds on wild birds and mammals) to farmed pigs, which became carriers for the virus and then amplified these infections in humans. The Nipah Virus became an outbreak because virus-infected fruit bats transmitted their virus to the farmed pigs via the consumption of fruit contaminated with bat saliva or urine. In the case of the Nipah Virus outbreak in Malaysia, there was no evidence of direct transmission from bats to humans, and almost all the human cases had direct contact with the infected pigs. Clearly abstinence from hunting, poaching, and wildlife products would have made no difference at all in the case of the Nipah Virus. 

Intensive animal farming is usually characterised by high animal population density and low genetic diversity, both of which are factors that promote increased pathogen transmission and adaptation. Farmed poultry live in conditions that suppress their immunity and make them more susceptible to infections. Avian influenza virus is reported to be “subclinical or of low pathogenicity in wild birds”, yet become highly pathogenic when transmitted to domestic poultry. A 2010 study published in Veterinary Record reports that a large-scale UK survey found that battery-cage poultry farms are 6 times more likely than cage-free farms to be infected with the strain of salmonella most commonly associated with food poisoning. 

The risk of zoonotic diseases must be managed through improvement in farm animal welfare standards, and disease management and control measures. These can include mitigating measures such as using slower-growing animal breeds, creating diets and management conditions that minimise stress to animals, increasing surveillance and vaccination to monitor and minimise the spread of disease, limiting live animal transportation time to reduce stress and cruelty, investing more in research and knowledge transfer to improve farm animal health and welfare standards, reducing non-therapeutic antibiotic use to reduce the risk of antibiotic resistance, and encouraging consumers to eat less or no meat products or replace conventional meat products with higher welfare animal products such as grass-fed beef or free-range or certified humanely raised poultry. 

On a personal level, we can reduce and mitigate the risk of zoonotic diseases and infections by choosing a plant-based diet and limiting our exposure to wildlife, which should remain wild and protected against unnecessary human contact. At an institutional level, those with the political and economic leverage must reduce and mitigate the said risk by disallowing deforestation and expansion of agricultural activities into forested areas in order to minimise wildlife-to-domestic-animal and animal-to-human viral spillover, tightening biosecurity controls in farms and places that process or handle animal products, improving animal health and welfare standards, replacing factory farming systems with more humane and sustainable systems, setting restrictions and guidelines on the transportation of livestock and poultry, and removing barriers and creating incentives for the development, production, and consumption of plant-based foods and lab-grown meat to replace and eventually phase out conventionally-produced farmed meat. 

WONG EE LYNN 

PETALING JAYA, SELANGOR

Letter to the Editor:Environmental Education Not A Substitute For Real Action

LETTER TO THE EDITOR 

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR REAL ACTION 

Kedah Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mukhriz Tun Mahathir’s recent announcement that Kedah will soon establish 36 eco-schools is one that would be received with good cheer by most Malaysians, as this move appears to affirm Malaysia’s position as a country that is pro-science, pro-environment, and serious about climate change. 

As we applaud this initiative, we must remember that environmental education can never be a substitute for real action. Those with the economic and political leverage to make a difference and to improve the state of Malaysia’s natural environment are not taking the necessary climate change preparation and mitigation measures, but are instead merely investing more in awareness and education programmes. 

The trouble with the lopsided focus on environmental education as a climate change mitigation strategy is that we are assuming we have 20 years to sit around and wait for the younger generation to graduate and solve environmental problems. We do not have the luxury of time. There is growing consensus among climate scientists that we have no more than 18 months to ensure that global emissions of carbon dioxide peak by 2020 to keep global temperatures within the safe limit. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported that to keep the rise in global temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius this century, carbon emissions will have to be cut by 45% by 2030. Since countries usually develop strategies in 5 to 10 year blocks, this would mean that the next 12 to 18 months are critical for the international community to develop firm and binding strategies to cut carbon emissions. It is unfair and irresponsible to expect the younger generation to clean up the environmental mess created by adults and governments. Creating an environmental curriculum and putting out more public service announcements while climate change is threatening food security, political and economic stability, and human health and safety is nothing short of an abdication of governmental environmental responsibility. 

Malaysia has been stuck in the ‘awareness’ and ‘education’ phase for over two decades. As someone who has been active in the environmental movement for that length of time, I regret to report that most governmental environmental education initiatives fall into the category of Arts and Crafts activities such as poster contests, stage plays, recycling competitions, and cute public service announcements, and do not constitute actual solutions. 

Instead of legislating and banning single-use plastics and getting manufacturers to commit to waste reduction targets, we are teaching children to stuff plastic wrappers into PET bottles, and to build structures nobody wants or needs with these ‘Eco Bricks’. We are still playing into the hands of the powerful plastics industry lobby by refusing to stem the tide of single-use plastics, and instead pretending that the problem is littering and lack of recycling. 

We are teaching children about the benefits of clean renewable energy, but not providing them with options to purchase electricity from clean energy providers. TNB’s monopoly in the Malaysian electricity market ensures that only those wealthy enough to own landed property and install solar photovoltaic panels can afford to switch to renewable energy. While other countries such as the Republic of Ireland and Norway are divesting from fossil fuels, and university student-led fossil fuel divestment campaigns resulted in universities and companies making commitments to replace fossil fuels with clean renewable energy, 96-97% of Malaysia’s energy consumption still comes from fossil fuels, and the fossil fuel industry still forms a powerful lobby, so powerful in fact that they are allowed to claim in educational materials and science discovery centres that petroleum has not only promoted economic growth but also environmental safety and food security. The Economist Intelligence Unit reported in September that Malaysia aims to increase its total electricity supply output from renewable sources to 20% by 2025, but this goal is too small and unambitious compared to that of Singapore, the Philippines, and other countries in the region. There are also concerns that judging by current consumption trends, it would simply mean that Malaysians will consume more of everything – more fossil fuels, more renewable energy, more private vehicles, more driving, and more air travel. 

We teach children about the benefits of taking public transport and carpooling, but we fail to provide an affordable, reliable, and punctual public transport service to those outside of areas served by RapidKL. We claim to care about the natural world and wildlife, yet we continue to approve and construct more highway projects through environmentally-sensitive areas, and have commenced the production of a third national car that nobody had really asked for, thus effectively encouraging more private vehicle ownership and more driving. 

We teach children to take shorter showers and to turn off the tap when brushing their teeth, but we don’t tell them that non-revenue water loss in Malaysia is calculated to be at the rate of 5,929 million litres per day of treated water, through no fault of children or ordinary consumers. We tell children that water shortage and drought is the result of climate change, but we don’t tell them that in Malaysia this is usually due to the logging and destruction of tropical rainforests, which serve as vital water catchment areas. We don’t tell them that the government has repeatedly failed to gazette and protect watersheds, or has been slow to replace leaking and unsafe water supply pipes. 

We teach children to plant vegetables in their school gardens, but we don’t take significant and decisive action against farmers who use excessive amounts of pesticides and herbicides, thus threatening food safety and human health. The rivers in Cameron Highlands are severely polluted due to agricultural activities, and three of the rivers are declared biologically dead, and no number of mini gardens in school yards can restore the ecosystem of these rivers or produce enough safe food to meet the nutritional needs of Malaysians. 

We teach children to plant trees in parks and school compounds, despite knowing that a tree will only begin to be effective in absorbing carbon in its tenth year, despite knowing that the carbon sequestered through tree replanting is almost negligible. At the same time, we continue to clear and log forests for development, infrastructure projects, and plantations. 

We teach children to ‘love our forests’, but when schoolchildren put up a play linking deforestation to oil palm cultivation, they faced harassment and intimidation from government ministries. Malaysia has lost 7.29 million hectares of tree cover to oil palm cultivation between 2001 and 2017 alone, and oil palm expansion is linked to the human-wildlife conflict, wildlife deaths, and the loss of indigenous lands, yet any call to produce palm oil and agricultural products without deforestation is met with hostility and allegations of treachery and lack of patriotism. Students are permitted to love our forests only as long as this love does not challenge our government’s stand on environmental issues. We cannot expect children to grow up to be problem-solvers if they are not allowed to think critically and question the status quo. 

We teach children that we need to cut down on carbon emissions if the Planet is to survive, but we in Malaysia are coy about letting people know the truth about animal agriculture and climate change. While entire schools in Brazil, Sweden, the USA, and the UK have gone fully vegan, students in Malaysian educational institutions have difficulty finding vegetarian and vegan options, and some have reported of being actively denied or refused vegan food in order to protect the business interests of school caterers and canteen operators. We pretend that abstinence from meat is a religious practice and that eating meat is a religious and cultural right, without providing citizens and students with objective and truthful information about the unsustainability of livestock and poultry farming, and the depletion of our oceans due to overfishing. At environmental events organised or hosted by government departments and agencies, guests continue to be served non-vegetarian food and bottled drinking water, despite requests from environmental organisations for vegetarian and planet-friendly food and beverages. We let our taste buds overrule our conscience, and we make decisions that are damaging to the environment against our better judgement in favour of temporary whims and desires.  

As adults and leaders, what we do must be aligned with what we say. We cannot solve the climate crisis by organizing poster displays and colouring contests. Environmental degradation is outstripping the pace of environmental education by a hundredfold. Environmental education cannot cope with the scale and rapidity with which the environmental crisis is growing. We cannot expect to mitigate and reverse the environmental harm caused by our political inertia by doing the bare minimum and encouraging children and citizens to make personal lifestyle changes, when the onus is on those with political and economic leverage to make firm decisions to secure the future of our planet. 

WONG EE LYNN 

PETALING JAYA