writing samples

1

WRITING SAMPLES

No. 1957 Kg. Paya Rambai Jalan Bayam 15200 Kota Bharu Kelantan

Ph: +60147199114 Email: [email protected]

ACADEMIC ESSAYS The governance of municipal solid waste management in Malaysia: Who is responsible and why?

2

The contested meanings of ‘sustainable development’ (how and why such differences exist).

6

Submission for Energy White Paper: Maximizing the value of technology in the energy sector

10

How sufficient is environmental legislation in Malaysia? Lessons learned from Australia’s environmental legislation and action.

13

PRESENTATION E-Waste management in Australia: An analysis of decision-making process

18

PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN POPULAR MEDIA “Learning differences”

20

“Beyond race”

21

“Being green is difficult”

22

LIVE BLOGGING EXPERIENCE “WacKOS Project”

23

“Live Futures 2020”

24

Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Softwarehttp://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

2

ACADEMIC ESSAYS

The governance of municipal solid waste management in Malaysia: Who is

responsible and why?

Summary: A final assessment completed for the course Fundamental Knowledge in Environmental

Management: Social Sciences (HPSC5520) which looks at the social construction of municipal solid waste

management in Malaysia.

Grade: Credit

[Excerpt pp.6-8]

THE SOLID WASTE AND PUBLIC CLEANSING ACT 2007 CAMPAIGN

The proposal to unify the MSW management across Malaysia began in the early 2007 in

response to the increasing public awareness and concerns on the inefficiency of local

authorities in managing the solid waste. The pollution of Selangor River with ammonia in

particular, caused public uproar at the outrageous cocktails of chemicals which came from

landfills discharge (John, 2006). Researchers began to point out the incapability of local

authorities in providing the technical and financial infrastructure to deal with such pollutions

(Shahrim, 2006). The Japan International Co-Operation Agency for instance, conducted a study

in 2004 and found the foulest dumps run by the local councils (Tan, 2006). Prof. Dr. Zaini Ujang

from the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia reasoned, "If this continues, Sungai Selangor is a ‘gone

case’ from the environmental point of view. We need a policy change and we need it by

tomorrow. The public’s health is at risk.” (John, 2006, p. 2). The Federal Government, as a

response, set out to review the legal frameworks of waste disposal.

Essentially, the reformation of MSW management is highly dependent on the national

privatization scheme outlined in 1995. Due to the fragmented responsibilities of local authorities,

the private waste disposal services providers are not able to obtain the full concessions for

waste disposal services. Until now they are still in the interim stage because the Federal

Government wants to evaluate whether the services they offered fit in the agreement stipulated

by the government and determine whether they could be considered for full privatization

(Bernama, 2006). In this case, the passage of Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management

Act 2007 will greatly determine the continuation of services provided by the government-


3

appointed concessionaires on waste disposal services. As such, the business interest is strong

in seeing through the implementation of the national Act.

However, the use of privatization as a sole strategy in achieving effective solid waste disposal

by the Federal Government is a concern raised by many. Local authorities so far are reluctant to

hand over their control of waste disposal services to the private providers because they are not

convinced the corporations are able to undertake the task (Bernama, 2007). Besides, a

privatized service means higher cost will be incurred to the consumers. In response to this,

Housing and Local Government Minister Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting used economic rationality in

his reply, “it would help local authorities concentrate more on development and social matters

for the people”. Not surprisingly, the Amalgated National Union of Local Authorities Employees

(ANULAE) claimed they were not consulted before the Bill was tabled in the Parliament.

Options in waste management

At present, it was reported 65% of total local authority’s budget is used on waste disposal

services, and the existing management approach is set to fill the dumpsites to its maximum

potential in less than two years (Battacharjee, 2006). Given the sorry state in which landfills are

being managed in Malaysia, the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Act is looking at other

alternatives for waste disposal.

Certainly, incineration is not a popular option among the public due to the high profile cases it

causes internationally (due to release of dioxin and furans, for example). The debates are mixed

from the encouraging support of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak for the new

incineration technology which converts waste to energy to the skepticism of the public who

argued the waste produced in tropic countries like Malaysia are inefficient for incinerator due to

its high moisture content (Bernama, 2007). The proposed Broga incinerator, which was set out

to be the biggest in the country was cancelled due to strong public opposition. However, there

was almost no concern expressed over mini incinerators built in Pangkor and Langkawi islands,

two of the famous holiday destinations in Malaysia (John, 2007). It can be concluded the public

opposition is generally driven by the Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) syndrome.

Similarly, the concern over recycling is expressed simply because of the increasing cost it incurs

on the consumers (Kabir, 2008). Even when asked about the motivation for recycling, the public

largely describes the convenience of facilities and cost as their drivers or barriers to recycling

(Omran, Mahmood, Abdul Aziz, & Robinson, 2009). As far as landfill is concerned, the

awareness has been largely promoted by the Federal Government and industries over the


4

economic imperatives of the practice, and the academics and environmentalists over the social

and environmental imperatives of it.

The stakeholders respond

It seems the major cause for delay of the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act is

the absence of public consultations during the development of its master plan before the Bill

was tabled in the Parliament. Now, after more than one year of its introduction, the Act is still

debated in the Parliament over every little scruple which needs to be ironed out before it comes

to a full enforcement. The dwindling trust in the efficiency of Federal Government underlies the

disagreements between key stakeholders and the government. The local authorities, especially

those in the opposition-led states are unconvinced at the accountability of the Federal

Government and corporations in providing better and more efficient waste disposal services.

So far, the five Pakatan Rakyat (People’s Alliance) led states take a united stand against the

implementation of the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act. According to them,

"The federal government has been hasty in pushing through the act without proper feedback

from the public and without consulting the state” (Kabir, 2008). It is evident the approach taken

by the Federal Government follows the rational model of decision-making process, and

therefore in spite of proposing the desired end-state to the problem, the solution is often

piecemeal and failed to address the complexity of the receiving environment in which the policy

is to be implemented.

Similarly, despite the repeated mentions of public consultation by the Housing and Local

Government Minister Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting (Goh, 2007), the transparency of the policy

process towards developing the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act is

questionable and the public as a result, is understandably in doubt to invest so much trust over

what little is known about the Act. Especially, since even after nearly 10 years of recycling

campaign, there is little observable change in the public attitude towards waste reduction and

the infrastructure in place is a mess.

Waste; is it a liability or an asset?

However, the credit is not all for the Federal Government in its hasty and piecemeal policy

response to MSW management. The opposition to the implementation of the Solid Waste and

Public Cleansing Management Act is not entirely due to environmental or technical causes.

Many are simply caused by economic or social interests. Malaysians are getting too comfortable


5

with the government bearing a part of their burden through subsidies (Azmi, 2009), and the

privatization scheme is reputed to incur higher cost to the public. In previous years, local

authorities had suffered debt with the private concessionaires because the taxes they collect

from the public are not sufficient to cover for MSW management provided by the companies.

(Councils owe concessionaires RM162mil, 2007)

The opposition-led states too, are using similar arguments against the implementation of the Act

by promising the public to convert the country into a “welfare nation” (‘Waste’ aid for certain

local councils, 2008). Much to the public’s anguish, it has been proven over and over again

even the issue like MSW management is used as an instrument to wrestle power between the

Federal Government and the opposition-led states. The question asked was whether even with

the best practices on the paper to handle the MSW management, can the people tasked with

the responsibilities deliver the job up to the mark?


6

ACADEMIC ESSAYS

The contested meanings of ‘sustainable development’ (how and why such

differences exist).

Summary: A personal narrative completed for the course Society and Environmental Policy (HPSC5500),

and it was written to address the members of Bayer Young Environmental Envoys 2007 who had gathered

in Cologne, Germany from 18-23 November 2007 for a study trip on environmental protection by industrial

and government practices jointly organized by Bayer AG and United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP)

Grade: High Distinction

[Excerpt pp.4-7]

The Fuzzy Nature of the Term ‘Sustainability’

It seems like the perfect solution to all of us, you might reckon, yes? I thought so too. But wait,

it hits upon me afterward ‘sustainability’ is only the beginning of the equation.

I still remember the first time I learn about the concept of sustainability, Simon Jackson in his

National Geographic film talked about how as a young person, he wanted his campaign to be

able to reach out to the public, the government, and the business people at the same time by

redefining the notion of environmentalism as “an issue on the left, centre and right”. His story

inspired me to no end and convinced me of the cohesive force of environmental passion. It

matters very little if you are simply a young citizen, a respected government authority, or a

successful entrepreneur because as long as we are working on the same grounds of

environmental guardianship, we can come together under a shared banner and work towards a

common and greater cause. It was how sustainability used to mean to me, it means working

together; it means a collective effort of everyone contributing to a greater good. I am not so sure

now.

Palmer et al (1997) aptly discuss how usage of the term ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable

development’ as common buzzwords in environmental policy-making process allows each


7

stakeholder to convey their own ideas without actually taking into account their consensus

meaning. Its open nature, albeit successful in bringing everyone together in one table for

discussion, is sometimes considered as a balancing act which enables us to trade off environment

with development whenever we deem necessary. Government and policy makers for example,

often put environment as secondary to socio-economic development in the face of the global

trade game. As the subject of equal access and public participation are not precisely important

business priorities, it makes the pursuit of ideal sustainable development standards ever more

futile. As a result, sustainable development becomes merely a greening idea on the paper and

conference.

In addition, Beder (1996) pointed out the term need in the definition of sustainable

development as unclear and subjective. Whose need? How do you distinguish needs from greed?

Are needs of the wealthier people different than those who live poorly? Again, the roles of

different stakeholders are coming into play in defining need as it is shaped by various cultural

and individual values.

There is also a problem of neo-classical economics which put everything including the

environment and natural resources in market values. The concept explicitly implies

environmental services as capital stock and therefore, allowing only individuals, countries, or

industries with the greatest purchasing power to reap its benefit (Hamilton, 1997; McAfee, 2004;

Pearce, 1993). Once I perceive advanced economic development as one of the ways to achieve

sustainability, deducing from my observation during our trip to Cologne how the company Bayer

AG combines its industrial practice with corporate responsibility. But after reading about the

voracious Enron project in India and Newmont in Indonesia where local community is

victimized by greedy multinational companies and corrupt government in the name of

development, now I realize economic growth is definitely not the ultimate answer.

Shall I tell you too about the concept of strong and weak sustainability, or deep ecologist and

soft technologist, or anthropocentric, technocentric, and ecocentric? I wonder if these definitions

exist more as a diversion for us to distinguish ourselves from one another, to make a distinction

about who is doing better works than whom and to place ourselves in a hierarchical order we are


8

so obsessed with sometimes. Northern and Southern countries are pointing fingers at each other;

environmentalist and ecologist are in dispute with economist and industrialist, and everyday

people are at war over power, food, and resources.

Can Sustainability Really Save Us?

These situations make my question myself, is sustainability really the answer? As I was

searching, I further discovered other ideas in reference to environmentalism and saving the

Earth. Unfortunately the ideas are not helpful in untangling my confusions. Take the example of

Bjorn Lomborg, who is famously known as eco-rebel among the ecocentric circles as he says the

society is being too hyped with the global warming issue. You might want to learn ideas from the

Ayn Rand Institute too, where the notion of environmentalism is blatantly rejected on the

grounds it diminishes the values of individual rights to live.

In the midst all of the discussions I presented above, I am certain you noticed something is

amiss. One essential thing which inherently is the driving force for all of us in our environmental

pursuit, one vital aspect which brings us together, and one crucial part which is somehow

forgotten and overlooked in the adult world. I remember and I am still confident, when all of us

met we did not carry with us the flag of a Northern or a Southern country, we did not concerned

ourselves with the fact whether among us there are an ecocentric or anthropocentric individual.

All we know was we are all working together, for our love of environment and our fellow global

citizens.

Do you still remember Tunza? In Swahili it means, to treat with love and care. To me it

embodies everything which needs to be considered in dealing with environment and social

development. Perhaps in the viewpoint of superior and bigger society, such idea is naive,

innocent, and inexperienced. But I am too terrified and perplexed with the complexities, hidden

motives, and conflicts which are thriving in the society at large; I am content for now to believe

in the best of people. Whether the idea is a form of deceptive simplicity, or a profound one; I will

prepare myself for another discovery at a different time in a different place. Not now.


9

ACADEMIC ESSAYS

Submission for Energy White Paper: Maximizing the value of technology in the

energy sector


Management: Engineering (CVEN 9895), and it was written in response to the consultation process

conducted by the Australian Government Department of Resources, Energy in Tourism for the

development of Energy White Paper.

Grade: Distinction

[Excerpt pp.3-6]

1. ENERGY OPTIONS FOR AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY BY 2030

At present, the energy options for Australia are fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas), renewable

sources (solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal), and nuclear energy. Whether or not these

resources can be considered as a significant energy sources for Australia in the next 20 years is

explored in the following assessments:

1.1. Conventional technologies

The technologies on fossil fuel, particularly coal, have a long-standing investment support of

government and industries. At present, fossil fuels dominate the electricity generation in

Australia by up to 80% (Macgill, 2008). It is understandable why the Australian Government

still considers coal as the major component of its economic revenues in the coming

decades, given the established technologies available to run coal-fired station and their long

economic life. But, it is also important for the Government to recognize that continuing the

business-as-usual pattern will incur a significantly high cost in reducing the impacts of global

warming in the future (Diesendorf, 2000).

In addition, the public awareness and expectation are growing in evaluating the

Government’s role in mitigating and adapting to the climate change. In a research

conducted by CSIRO (Gardner & Ashworth, 2007), it is shown that the general Australian

households demonstrated higher acceptance for lower emission energy sources (natural

gas) and renewable (solar and wind) as compared to fossil fuels (diesel and petrol).

1.2. New and emerging technologies

In response to climate change, the Australian Government needs to be receptive to the

changing stakeholder’s expectations of energy options. The following three areas need to be

addressed:


10

§ What are the best possible energy sources which are both sustainable and cost-

effective?

§ Given the yet large reserves of coal available around the world, what are the

technologies available which enable the energy to be harvested while ensuring a big

reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions?

§ How can the energy produced be efficiently distributed and used by the consumers?

Table 1 illustrates some of the key technologies available which responds to the above

questions with respect to lower emission technologies, renewable sources, and energy

efficiency.

Table 1: Summary of key potential technologies in response to the range of energy options in Australia

Renewable Sources Energy Efficiency Lower Emission Technology Solar power Wind power Bioelectricity Hydro power

Nuclear reactor

Smart meters Compact fluorescent lamps Space heating and cooling

Water heating

Coal gasification Carbon capture and storage

(CCS) Oxy-fuel combustion

So far, the Government is paying particular attention to the CCS to complement its reliance

on coal. While this may be useful as a transition technology from fossil fuels to zero-

emission energy sources, the CCS technologies are still highly uncertain and yet to be

demonstrated in a large scale. In addition, although CCS may be able to reduce the carbon

dioxide (CO2) emission by 80-90%, the technology is not expected to take off until after 2015

(Nicholson, 2009).

In longer term, the Australian community expects its energy sources to be fully renewable.

Australia has a high potential for solar, wind, and biomass energy. Wind power and biomass

energy generally precedes solar energy in its technical status and deployment potential

(Macgill, 2008). The challenge in dealing with renewable energy is its intermittency; energy

storage system in this case is a critical infrastructure which needs to be taken into account

when considering the technology reform for energy sector.

1.3. Energy storage systems

Given the intermittency of renewable sources like wind and solar, electricity storage is

crucial in providing uninterrupted energy supply to the end-users. One way of storing the

grid electricity is compressed air, or compressed air energy storage (COES). In COES, wind

or solar energy is used to drive an electric compressor to pump air into a sealed

underground storage to a high pressure. Consequently, the high pressure air is used to

drive a turbine by mixing it with natural gas (Nicholson, 2009).

An efficient energy storage system is also required to ensure the possibility of a localized

and distributed generation of electricity where greenhouse gas emissions can be

significantly reduced.


11

1.4. Demand reduction and energy efficiency

A majority of Australian households demonstrated a positive preference towards using

demand management technology (Gardner & Ashworth, 2007). In particular, the idea of

setting up a smart electricity generator at each individual household is attractive as the

electricity is produced based on customer preferences. However, it is important to note the

general positive attitude unnecessarily translate to the willingness to purchase the product.

In this case, government support is crucial in supporting the take-up of such technology.

In respect to energy efficiency, the following are among the potential areas where reductions

in greenhouse gas emissions are significant (Diesendorf, 2000; Nicholson, 2009):

§ Residential hot water: Water heating accounts for 20-30% of the energy used in a

household. The traditional all-electric hot water system is energy- and emission-

intensive; therefore a national policy is required to phase out the system and replace

it with gas- or electric boosted solar system. Additional savings can also be made by

installing water-efficient fixtures on shower-heads, washing machines, and

dishwasher.

§ Space heating and cooling: About 30-40% of energy use in a household is for

space heating and cooling. In response to cold climate, improvements on thermal

insulation can be made such as sealing air leaks, putting insulation in wall cavities,

and using multiple glazing in windows.

§ Residential lighting: Phasing out incandescent lamp has been adopted by the

Federal Government policy, and it should be further strengthened through the

application of policy in local councils and office and industrial lighting.

§ Residential appliances: Although the standby power only accounts for 1% of the

greenhouse gas emissions, they generally contribute 5-10% of the general electricity

bill. Many perceived turning off the device at socket power as inconvenient, therefore

one way of handling this is by mandating manufacturers to reduce standby power by

as much as 90%. IEA’s “1-Watt Plan” is one example the Australian Government

could adopt in reducing standby power.

1.5. Synergies between technologies

As predicted by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Stern, fossil fuel

will continue to produce half of the total energy supply in decades if not centuries

(Nicholson, 2009). Therefore, in order to ensure continued use of the fossil fuel with

minimum or zero emission, technologies must be adopted to capture the CO2 emission.

(Sims, et al., 2007).

However, although CCS technology on its own is already available commercially, its

integration in a larger scale coupled with electricity generation plant is still poorly

demonstrated (Macgill & Outhred, 2004). One alternative technology to CCS which is more

promising and readily demonstrated is integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). In

IGCC, coal is subjected to high temperature to produce heat and syngas which in turn run

the gas and steam turbine to produce electricity (Nicholson, 2009; Macgill & Outhred, 2004).


12

Nevertheless, a considerable work is still required to assess the technical and financial

efficiency of CCS technology in abating greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel.

Another key question which needs to be considered is integrating renewable energy mix

(solar, wind, and biomass energy) to meet higher energy demand in replacement of fossil

fuel in the future. Given the wide range of technologies available, the Federal Government’s

task at hand is to ensure the potential for renewable energy is prioritized and given

consideration as high as those of fossil fuel.

1.6. The cost of maturating each technology and their timing

Table 2 gives a summary of the technologies previously discussed and shows their stage of

development and the likely cost impact (Nicholson, 2009).

Table 2: Summary of potential new technologies and their maturation time and likely cost impact

Technology R&D Phase

Pilot Plants Commercial Testing

When Available

Likely Cost Impact

Carbon Capture Storage (CCS)

Yes Under construction

Technology already in use

2015+ +20-50%a

Solar power Yes Yes Yes Now with solar thermal 2020+ with photovoltaic

100-150%

Wind power Yes Yes Yes Now 0.045-0.14 US$/kWhb

Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC)

Yes Yes 2020+

a Likely cost impact over existing commercial technology (for example, coal and gas power stations without

CCS) b Lifetime generation cost Source: (Nicholson, 2009)


13

ACADEMIC ESSAYS

How sufficient is environmental legislation in Malaysia? Lessons learned from

Australia’s environmental legislation and action


Management: Laws (LAWS 3439) which compares the development of environmental laws and policies

between Malaysia and Australia.

Grade: Credit

[Excerpt pp. 4-8]

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN MALAYSIA

To begin with, it should be noted the status of Malaysia as a Federation means state

governments surrendered their powers to the Federal Government. However, the Constitution

granted independence to state government in matters of land, local government, and religion1.

In general, it has a significant impact on the national coordination of environmental policies and

legislations.

In the early decades before and after the independence Malaysia’s response to environmental

problems were largely sectoral and fragmented. They were generally designed to deal with

environmental issues as they arose, and hence they were reactive and piecemeal. Table 1

outlines the statutes established to address sectoral management issues of natural resource

use in these years.

Source: Hezri and Hasan (2006)

1 Federal Constitution, Art 74


14

Recognizing the need for national coordination and a comprehensive response to environmental

problems, the Malaysian government began to enact a series of legislations to facilitate the

implementation of nationwide environmental policy. The statutes are examined below in

accordance to major environmental areas:

Environmental regulation

Firstly, EQA 1974 is an important piece of legislation as it provides a legal framework and is

enforceable throughout the nation. Under the EQA 1974, the Division of Environment (DOE)

was created under the Ministry of Local Government and Housing in 1975, which was upgraded

to a department in 1983. Today DOE is positioned under the Ministry of Natural Resources and

Environment2. According to Section 3 of the EQA 1974 (Malaysia), among the responsibilities of

the Director General of Environmental Quality are3:

(a) To administer and enforce the EQA and any regulations and orders made under the Act.

The Director General is responsible for any matters involving the issue of licenses, and

undertaking any surveys and investigations in the event of breach of the Act.

(b) To be responsible for and to co-ordinate all activities relating to the discharge of wastes

into the environment and for preventing or controlling pollution.

(c) To recommend to the Minister the environment protection policy.

Apart from DOE, EQA 1974 (Malaysia) also constitutes the establishment of Environmental

Quality Council (EQC) to advise the Minister on matters pertaining to environmental qualities or

any matter referred to it by the Minister4. The EQC members consist of ten elected

representatives from various Ministries (Natural Resources and Environment, International and

Domestic Trade, Transport Human Resources, and Health), industries (petroleum, oil palm, and

manufacturing), academic institutions and civil society groups5.

Similarly, Protection of Wildlife Act 1974 (Malaysia) assigns the Department of Wildlife and

National Park (DWNP) to manage wildlife across the states in West Malaysia6 and empowers

the DWNP officers as the authority to enforce the Act7.

Land use and planning

The earliest piece of legislation which governs the town and country planning system in

Malaysia is Town and Country Planning Act (Act 172) (TCPA) 1976. It has a principal role of

regulating land development to maximize environmental protection in addition to EQA 1974.

Section 2 of the TCPA 1976 outlines the role of overarching national policy on town and country

planning as8

2 EQA 1974 (Malaysia), s 2, “Minister”

3 EQA 1974 (Malaysia), s 3

4 EQA 1974 (Malaysia), s 4

5 EQA 1974 (Malaysia), s 4 (2) 6 Protection of Wildlife Act 1972 (Malaysia), s 1 (2)

7 Protection of Wildlife Act 1972 (Malaysia), s 5 8 TCPA 1976 (Malaysia), s 2 (a)


15

The Act is enforceable in all states in Peninsular Malaysia, and under the Act, the national land

development and planning policy is coordinated between the federal, state and local

governments9. Such three-tiered policy framework allows state and local governments exclusive

powers to administer the planning and development policies (State Structure Plan10 and Local

Plan11) while keeping them in line with the over-arching National Physical Framework12.

In addition to TCPA 1976, in 1988 subsequent to the worldwide implementation of

environmental impact assessment (EIA) under the EQA 1974 (Malaysia) the government

gazetted the EIA Order of 1987 to mandate the EIAs for 19 prescribed activities13.

According to the Section 34A of the Act, any person intending to carry out any of the prescribed

activities must submit a report to the Director General of DOE before the project can be

approved. The report must satisfy the guidelines specified by the DG of the DOE14. Prior to the

submission of detailed EIA reports, project proponent may undertake a preliminary assessment

to ensure the proposed project does not contradict any development plans or policies namely

the Local Plan, State Structure Plan and National Physical Plan15. The preliminary assessment

reports are reviewed by the DOE states offices whereas detailed EIA reports are handled by the

federal Government16.

Biodiversity and natural resources

In regards to the protection of biodiversity and natural resources, the federal legislation such as

Protection of Wildlife Act 1972 and National Parks Act 1980 allow the Federal government to

override State jurisdiction when an area has been declared a national park17, wildlife reserve or

sanctuary18. However, the establishment of an area as a national park, wildlife reserve or

sanctuary is subjected to the agreement by States’ Authorities.

In addition to the legislative responses discussed above, in the late 1970s Malaysia began to

incorporate sustainable development in its national plans in response to political pressures at

the national and international levels. For example, the plight of Penan community against the

9 TCPA 1976 (Malaysia), Part III

10 TCPA 1976 (Malaysia), s 8

11 TCPA 1976 (Malaysia), s 12 12

TCPA 1976 (Malaysia), s 6B 13 Environmental Quality (Prescribed Activities) (EIA) Order 1987 (Malaysia), Schedule 14

EQA 1974 (Malaysia), s 34A 15

“Environmental Impact Assessment”, (2009), The Official Website of Malaysian Department of Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Retrieved online from http://www.doe.gov.my/en/content/environmental-impact-assessment-eia on 26

th November 2009

16 Briffett, C., Obbard, J., and Mackee, J., (2004), Environmental assessment in Malaysia: a means to an end or a new beginning?, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 221-233 17 National Parks Act 1980 (Malaysia), s 9 (1) 18 Protection of Wildlife Act 1972 (Malaysia), s 47


16

logging industry in Sarawak attracted international attention to the government’s forestry policy

and it subsequently led to the formation of National Forestry Council to facilitate a nationwide

policy-planning process. Similarly, the government’s ratification of Convention on Biological

Diversity led to the formation of the National Policy on Biological Diversity in 199819. However,

the impressive legal and administrative structure of environmental protection in Malaysia is no

guarantee to its effective implementation. As a case in point, even though Malaysia is a member

of a number of multilateral environmental agreements, the policy prescriptions resulted from

these agreements are often purely symbolic and not backed with credible statutes20.

During the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, many environmental lobbyists attributed the failure

to deal with environmental degradation to the inherent institutional weaknesses and lack of

political commitment in the Malaysian government21.

In the following, we summarize key institutional issues which serve as a drivers or barriers to

effective and efficient implementation of environmental legislation in Malaysia:

a) The implementation of an over-arching national legislation is generally contingent with the

agreement between the federal and state authorities. As a result of the provision in the

Federal Constitution whereby state jurisdictions includes matters involving land use and

natural resources management, conflicts often arise when the federal government decides

to impose legislations on these areas22,23. As a case in point, the construction of Bakun

Hydroelectric Dam (Bakun Dam) in Sarawak illustrates the complications in applying federal

environmental legislation in place of state law. The construction of Bakun Dam was initially

subjected to the procedural requirements of EIA in the EIA Order 1987. However, the Order

was later amended by the Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment to exclude

Bakun Dam from the federal EIA process, and transfer the project wholly to Natural

Resources Ordinance 1949, a Sarawak State law24. Although the amendment was later

criticized as invalid by the High Court of Malaya, the division of power between the federal

and state governments is clearly an impediment to the coherent environmental legislation in

Malaysia.

b) Due to the sectoral nature of environmental legislations in Malaysia, different national

agencies and laws are responsible for different environmental sectors such as pollution

control, forestry, fisheries, agriculture and mining. In particular, the implementation of EIA

Order 1987 is underpinned by EQA 1974, which is regulated by the DOE. On the other

hand, the planning applications are reviewed by the planning authorities. In deciding the

planning applications, the planning authority is subjected to the directions given by the State

Planning Committee25 but there is no provision for the planning authority to strictly follow the

opinions of other government agencies including DOE. The overlapping of these legislations

19

Hezri and Hasan (2006) 20

Hezri and Hasan (2006) 21

Vatikiotis, M. (1992), Plenty of laws, but little action, Far Eastern Economic Review, 133:45, pp.3233 22 Hezri and Hasan (2006) 23

Maidin (2006) 24 Kajing Tubek & Ors v. Ekran Bhd & Ors [1996] 2 MLJ 388 25 TCPA 1976 (Malaysia), s 22 (2) (aa)


17

often caused certain areas to be unregulated; as such structure is void of any provision for

coordination between various agencies involved in environmental management26.

c) Another hindrance to potent implementation of environmental legislation in Malaysia is the

strict rules of standing, or locus standi for environmental litigation actions. So far, there is no

statutory definition of standing; as such the right to appear in a court of justice is determined

by the sole discretion of the courts. For instance, following the decision of High Court of

Malaya on the case of Bakun Dam, the Court of Appeal disagreed to the standing of the

plaintiffs as residents of the affected area because they had suffered no injury and claimed

the High Court has failed to consider the interests of justice from the defendants’ point of

view, i.e. public and national interests27.

Another case in point involves the United Engineers (M) Sdn. Bhd. and Lim Kit Siang, a

Member of Parliament and the Leader of Opposition (UEM case), whereby Lim Kit Siang

had asked for an injunction from Penang High Court to declare the letter of intent issued by

the Malaysian government to UEM in regards to the construction of North and South

Highway project as invalid28, and his request was approved after an appeal to Supreme

Court (now the Federal Court of Malaysia). However, after both UEM and the government

appealed to the High Court29, the decision was overturned by the Supreme Court on the

grounds Lim Kit Siang could not establish any distinction between himself and any other

road users. According to Tun Salleh Abas, the Lord President (LP) when he delivered the

judgment,

“I cannot see how he could be different from other road and highway

users...Thus, as a road and highway user, he also has no locus standi.”30

This decision represents a high water mark to the law of locus standi in Malaysia, and

subsequently makes public-interest litigation difficult. A similar case occurred to Abdul

Razak Ahmad, who objected the ‘floating city’ project in Johor Baru on the grounds the

Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment is obliged to produce EIA report on the

project. However, his civil suit failed because he was unable to prove he suffered special

damage than other taxpayers or residents31.

This evaluation of current environmental legislation in Malaysia reveals a number of

opportunities for reform. In the next section, we derive our experience from learning about

environmental law in Australia to assess the potential there is for take-up of reform in Malaysia.

In particular, we focus our study on the practice of environmental legislation in New South

Wales and the Commonwealth of Australia.

26

Maidin (2006) 27

Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Alam Sekitar & Anor v. Kajing Tubek & Ors. [1997] 3 MLJ 23 28 Lim Kit Siang v. United Engineers (M) Sdn. Bhd and 3 Ors (No. 2) [1988] 1 MLJ 50 29

Government of Malaysia v. Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12 30 Government of Malaysia v. Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12 31 Abdul Razak Ahmad v Kerajaan Negeri Johor & Anor [1995] 2 MLJ 287


18

PRESENTATION

E-Waste management in Australia: An analysis of decision-making process

Summary: A final assessment completed for the core course Addressing Environmental Issues (IEST

5003) which analyse the decision-making process of e-Waste management in Australia.

Grade: Distinction

[Excerpt slide 9-12]


19


20

PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN POPULAR MEDIA

“Learning differences”, The Star, August 28 2007


21


“Beyond race”, The Star, August 25 2009


22


“Being green is difficult”, RANT & R.AGE, The Star, June 06 2008


23

LIVE BLOGGING EXPERIENCE

WacKOS Project, http://cqwackos.wordpress.com

Summary: The website is managed in conjunction with the Maxis Cyberlinq Competition 2007. As the

secretary of the project, I was responsible to cover and report events, activities, meetings throughout the

project.


24

LIVE BLOGGING EXPERIENCE

Live Futures 2020, http://livefutures2020.org

Summary: I volunteered as a guest blogger for Live Futures 2020 in 2008, an annual festival in Sydney

geared towards networking and exchanging information in innovation and co-creating future. The festival is

organized by Global Youth Futures.


writing samples

Career

passage of solid waste

effective solid waste

environmental management

public cleansing act

federal government

reformation of msw management

existing management

public uproar