Saturday, February 16, 2008

THE UNKINDEST CUT

Hantu Laut

Read the following article from the Economist and see for yourself the hypocrisy of the Western nations who have been outspoken about conservation and preserving the rainforests of the world.

They blame the poor and less developed nations for extracting forest resources to generate revenues without making an effort to help those countries minimise the ecological damage.Much have been said about its conservation but very little had been done to actually conserve it.

From the jungles of Borneo to the deep lust forests of the Amazon, indiscriminate exploitation of the forests have been going on for decades without any sincere effort to minimise it other than providing lip service.

Those like the American charity, Conservation International who are prepared to finance conservation but is limited by its financial resources, wanted the cheapest price possible, which become meaningless to the host country as it does not help in any economic improvement of the country concerned.

Corporations and NGOs do not have sufficient financial resources to undertake this mammoth and non-profit endeavours.It has to be an agglomeration of rich and developed countries putting their resources together.A reasonable conservation fee should be paid to the host country that have agreed to conserve its tropical rainforests for the benefits of the global community

The best possible scenario would be to establish a new body under the auspices of the United Nations and make the top 20 richest countries as permanent members and make them contribute certain percentage of their GDP to the rainforest conservation fee.The selected forests should than be made as World Heritage Site with no commercial activity allowed other than low impact eco tourism.

Here is an opportunity for them to help poorer countries to protect and preserve pristine forests from destruction and none had taken up the offer for a chicken feed sum of US$1.6 million a year.

If the conservationists can't pay this meagre sum than they shouldn't complain if the logging company buy the rights to destroy it.

The government of Cameroon will soon have to sell the pristine tropical rainforest of 830,000 hectares to the loggers to generate revenue for the country, if no rich nation, big corporation or NGOs come forward to conserve it.

The rich Western nations especially the US, Japan and Western European countries should put their money in their mouths.



The price of conservation

The unkindest cut

Feb 14th 2008
From The Economist print edition

Cameroon wants to sell a forest, but conservationists don't want to buy it


FOR rent: 830,000 hectares of pristine tropical rainforest. Rich in wildlife, including forest elephants and gorillas. Provides a regionally important African green corridor. Price: $1.6m a year. Conservationist tenant preferred, but extractive forestry also considered. Please apply to the Cameroonian minister of forestry.

That, in essence, is what the government of Cameroon has been offering since 2001 in an attempt to make some money from a forest known as Ngoyla-Mintom. The traditional way would be to lease the land to a logging company. But Joseph Matta, the country's forestry minister, would rather lease it to a conservation group. The trouble is, he cannot find one that is prepared to take it off his hands.

The idea of conservation concessions has been around since 2000. It was introduced by an American charity called Conservation International, which realised the going rate for logging concessions was often so low that it could afford to outbid the foresters. It has since leased forests in Guyana—where it has 80,000 hectares of Upper Essequibo—and in Peru, Sierra Leone, Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Mexico. But even in 2001 it reckoned that at $2 a hectare Ngoyla-Mintom was too dear. Its land in Essequibo costs a mere 37 cents a hectare.

Mr Matta, of course, thinks Ngoyla-Mintom is worth every penny. Indeed, the price has gone up. The government now wants additional money to compensate Cameroon for forgoing the jobs and local development that come with logging. The forest is pristine habitat of a sort likely to contain some extremely valuable pieces of timber. It also connects three other large protected areas (see map), and thus forms an important part of a regionally important green corridor. Mr Matta says that if one group of conservationists or another doesn't cough up soon, he really will be forced to get on the phone to the loggers.

A compromise put forward by the World Wide Fund for Nature has failed to find favour. The WWF suggested keeping an unexploited core of Ngoyla-Mintom while the rest is opened to limited “sustainable” hunting and forestry. The quid pro quo would be a lower rent. Read more.....


Friday, February 15, 2008

ELECTION 2008 - WILL THERE BE SURPRISES ?

Hantu Laut

Election Commission Chairman, Tan Sri Abdul Rashid has announced nominations on 24th Feb and election on 8th March.There will be 222 parliamentary seats and 505 state seats up for grab.

Will Pak Lah be lucky this time around? There are mixed reactions as to what would be the result of the forthcoming polls with many still giving him a comfortable win over the oppositions.

As usual the oppositions are still disorganised and are expected to overlap in several areas where each one seems to think they have strong support.A clash between the oppositions would give clear advantage to the BN. Many Malaysians are still not comfortable with the idea of having the oppositions as an alternative. It's a Catch 22 situation and a sense of better the devil you know than the one you don't. The oppositions don't have credible manifestos to make the electorate fall head over heels in love with them.

Anwar Ibrahim of PKR lamented that Abdullah called the election sooner to frustrate him from standing as candidate.He was disbarred from standing for politicial office for 5 years due to his criminal record. The five-year period expires in April this year thus making him eligible to stand in few weeks time.There is some truth to his claim.

Abdullah should have waited and allow Anwar to participate and prove to the people once and for all that Anwar's politicial career is over as claimed by UMNO. Doing what he did would give credence that UMNO fear of Anwar is genuine.

The biggest blow and frustration would be for Hindraf and the Indian community. Most so-called Indian seats are likely to go to BN.There are no predominantly Indian constituencies, most are marginal and need support of other communities to win.

Other disadvantages for the opposition are money and machinery. The BN has a huge war chest and government machinery at their disposal. The main stream media is under their control and monopoly.Worse and most unfair is the campaign period. With only two weeks to go, the opposition would be hard press for time to get their machinery moving to get to the masses.

Some political pundits predicted BN would get less than what they got in 2004 but would still get 2/3 majority. Not good news for the opposition.

I am sure there will be some surprises in store for Malaysians come this March 8th.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

WHAT HAPPENNED TO THE PRIME MINISTER ?

Hantu Laut

This is not amusing at all.Yesterday he said Parliament wouldn't be dissolved today.He did exactly the opposite of what he said. Today he dissolved it and called for fresh election. Has he forgotten he is the Prime Minister and not a student prankster.

Can anyone get more notoriously fickle than him, it's almost like the weather, uncomfortably unpredictable.

You got me completely confused.

I hope you were misquoted, Mr Prime Minister !

SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN THE CITY OF KUALA LUMPUR

Hantu Laut

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark".

Many would have thought it was Hamlet who said that.Only Shakespearean purists and those who read Shakepeare's plays as literature in school would know it wasn't Hamlet who said it.The famous phrase was actually said by a minor character named Marcellus, an officer in the palace.

There is something rotten in the city of Kuala Lumpur.



A corrupt ex-chief judge, a crooked lawyer, a greedy businessman and a dead victim.

Shakespeare would have jumped out of his grave if he could and write his next famous play that would make 'Merchant of Venice' and Shylock pale in comparison. The RM10 million awarded to Vincent Tan was the same if not worse than the pound of flesh demanded by Shylock.Judgment written by a crooked lawyer not by the presiding judge.

Why would it be the same? Because M.G.G Pillai didn't have that kind of money and Vincent Tan can make him a bankrupt just out of spite.The crooked judge knew it, the crooked lawyer knew it and the greedy businessman knew it. The only difference between 'The Merchant of Venice' and 'The Merchant of Kuala Lumpur' was -- In Shakespeare's play, Antonio was an honest merchant and the judge was upright and honest.The judge(ex-judge) in Kuala Lumpur walked, slept and ate with the devil.

The stage is set to play out Malaysia's most shameful act of political tyranny, skullduggery, betrayal, personal greed and judicial corruption.

Judgment made in the hall of justice more criminal than the crime itself. Justice for sale to those who can pay and hell to those who can't.For some unfortunate souls the Hall of Justice had turned out to be the Hell of Justice.

Day by day the dirty linens of the judiciary and politicians are being washed in public.

A plaintiff's lawyer wrote whole judgement for a lazy judge, the ACA bribed witnesses to shut their mouths and hosts of every unimaginable sins that one could possibly have not imagined happened in an establishment of such high repute and standing. A place where people seek justice and where injustices should be repaired and delivered fairly and impartially.

Only God knows how many have suffered injustices at the hand of corrupt judges and greedy lawyers.

These are people worse than the common thief who stole a pittance and paid for his crime. Shouldn't the punishment be more severe than the poor man who had no choice but to steal to put food on his table.

A Chief Judge who sold his soul to the devil and has no shame and remorse for what he did. A liar and a devil in disguise. Didn't have an ounce of guilt that he has shamed the whole institution that protects people from people like him.

Now that he is caught with his pants down would he carry on lying in his teeth and kept the pretence of innocent ?

This could be the tip of the iceberg, there could be other cases of lawyers having written judgement on behalf of lazy judges.

It is without any doubts the moral standard has gone down to the gutter level.

"No man has a good enough memory to make a successful liar". ~Abraham Lincoln