[632] Of Malaysian environmental law and inflation

Several days ago, Malaysian press highlighted a case in which a Malayan tiger was cut up into pieces and stored inside a refrigerator.

Tiger is an officially recognized endangered species worldwide. This killing should take any nature lover up to arms. However, what riles me up further is the weak punishment:

It is an offence to possess tiger meat and an offender could be jailed up to five years or fined up to RM15,000.

Tiger trafficking is a lucrative black-market trade as body parts of the animal could be processed into traditional medicine in countries such as Thailand and China. Each animal is said to fetch between RM20,000 and RM30,000.

I’m not sure if the possessor of the tiger carcass was indeed the poacher but if he is, imagine if he had gotten away with the prize – he will, on average, be better off.

Say there’s a 50-50 chance of being caught and getting away. Also, assume that if the person’s found guilty, then he or she will face maximum fine of RM15,000. At the same time, if he gets away, the person will receive RM20,000. RM20,000 is the lower limit of the range given by the news report.

Hence, his expected gain will be RM2,500. This might be a simple binomial model but it tells me that this particular environmental law does not sufficiently deal with environmental crime. I mean, come on. On average, a person is actually being rewarded for breaking the law.

It’s worth noting that the same scenario is applicable to the logging industry. I realize that way back in 2004.

I suspect that when most Malaysian environmental laws were first enacted, the monetary punishment was indeed high. However, the real value of the monetary penalties has been progressively eroded by inflation. In fact, I believe this is the case for Malaysian animal protection laws too.

According to Selangor chapter of Malaysian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), penalties for animal abuse is too low. These two cases are perfect illustration:

SPCA Calls for Harsher Penalties for Animal Abuse
Following the recent two cases brought to Court by Jabatan Haiwan Enforcement Officers (DVS), SPCA is appealing to the Courts and the Law makers and decision makers to take into account the seriousness of these cases and the inadequate penalties at present are being issued.

The first case, a Breeder in Cheras was fined RM200 for cruelty to 13 dogs, the charge was expected to be for each individual dog (i.e. 13 X RM200) and the lack of a ban of keeping animals after prosecution for cruelty means that each dog was returned to the owner to continue a life of suffering and production.

The second case, a Daschund named Tim, was chained so tightly round his neck that the chain had become embedded into the skin and a six inch wound exposed a bloody mess around his neck. The owner in this case was fined RM200 and had to spend one day in jail. The dog is to be returned to the owner. Tim is still recovering from his injury and several operations to remove the chain from his neck.

SPCA is currently running a campaign to convince the Malaysian government to amend Malaysian Animal Ordinance 1953 and introduce harsher penalties. The law was first enacted in 1953 and 52 years are definitely enough for inflation to render the law toothless.

The bottom line is that inflation cannot be ignored. Failure to recognize the inflationary impact on these set of laws will result in failure to curb environmental crime. This in the end underlines the need for lawmakers to talk in real term. But lawmakers and many others never do. I wonder why.

p/s – this person has a talent for trouble. And a talent for retardness too.

pp/s – a father names his son Oliver Google Kai as a tribute to Google.