Human-wildlife conflicts result when the actions of humans or wildlife have an adverse
impact upon the other. This paper presents an overview of Malaysia’s legal and
administrative approaches to manage human-wildlife conflicts (HWC). Firstly, the paper
reviews the status of wildlife in Malaysia and the current conflicts involving man and
wild animals that happen both in urban and rural areas. Then it identifies government’s
policy relating to land-use planning as well as wildlife conservation, and examines how
such policies have shaped HWC. While urbanization and agricultural expansion are
considered main factors that contribute towards such conflict, environmental law and
relevant administrative instrument on the other hand can play vital roles to support the
management and mitigation of HWC. For this purpose, the article examines existing
legal provisions and administrative strategy applicable in Malaysia to manage and
mitigate conflicting interests of human and wildlife. The examination concludes that
law and institutions have important roles to play in managing and mitigating HWC.
Mitigation measures through the provisions of law and institutional strategy that take into
consideration biological, economic and social factors can effectively narrow down the
conflicts. At the same time such measures also help towards environmental conservation,
and enhancement of human welfare, health and safety
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Every system of government has its own set of environmental issues and challenges. Uncertainty, with regard to jurisdiction between state and federal authority in environmental management, or where environmental degradation has occurred, is one of the more common and prevalent issues in countries with a federal structure of government; Malaysia is no exception. This article contends that this jurisdictional uncertainty in Malaysia can be alleviated and its effects, to an extent, diminished with a constitutional provision. A provision within the Federal Constitution (Malaysia) explicitly providing for the right to a clean environment could have a substantial and positive effect on existing jurisdictional challenges. It is this relationship, and the possible effects that a constitutional provision could engender, that this article will examine in more detail.
Within the written words of the Malaysian Federal Constitution, ‘environment’ is missing. No express term provides or protects the right to a clean environment, except for a limited questionable right judicially interpreted under art 5(1)’s right to life. It has often been said that the framers of the Constitution, the Reid Constitutional Commission, omitted to provide for the environment given the Constitution’s silence on this matter, and that this omission is fatal. However, it is suggested — contrarily — that there may be historic evidence to demonstrate not only that the Reid Constitutional Commission made proposals for environmental protection, but also that it envisaged a strong federal governmental role in the preservation and conservation of the environment; a role which, if recognised and adopted today, could result in greater protection for the environment and a more certain legal environmental framework for Malaysia.
In 2007, the Malaysian Companies Act 1965 was amended to incorporate new provisions to deal with directors’ duties of care, skill, and diligence and their powers of delegation and reliance on information provided by others. In addition, a ‘business judgment rule’ was inserted into the Act. This article examines, from the Malaysian perspective, the origins of these novel provisions, their contents, the need for enacting them and their likely impact on business processes and managerial decisions made by company directors in Malaysia.
Abstract On September 2015, countries around the world pledged to end poverty, protect the planet, and hit specific developmental targets within fifteen years at the signing of th|e United Nations 2030 Agenda. Within the 2030 Agenda are seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Goal 16 of the SDG contains twelve targets; of these, Target 16.3 is aimed at ensuring equal access to justice for all and Target 16.10 at ensuring public access to information. Malaysia as a signatory has pledged its commitment to fulfilling these SDGs. This paper's primary focus is on the fulfilment of Targets 16.3 and 16.10 within Malaysia's legal environmental framework. At present, there are provisions that ensure equal access to justice and those that ensure public access to information; however, it is suggested that these are insufficient, uncommon, and limited. This paper proposes an amendment to the Federal Constitution to include the express right to a clean environment, and demonstrates, through comparative study, the success similar provisions have had on the environmental protection laws of other countries such as India, the Philippines, South Africa, Nepal, the Netherlands, and Nigeria. It then considers what possible lessons Malaysia could glean from these national experiences in fulfilling its goals for Targets 16.3 and 16.10 before concluding with the proposition that Malaysia should consider an express constitutional right to a clean environment if she intends to meet her SDG goals.