Written by Harsimran Kaur and Neha Navalashini Sominadu from ECOLAWGY UM, University of Malaya. Edited by Siti Sarah Ikmal Hisham. Reviewed by Luc Choong and Celin Khoo Roong Teng. Being home to an astonishing ecological legacy, wildlife-related crimes such as poaching, trafficking, smuggling and illegal hunting are no longer alien to us. Legislation has been enacted to circumvent these issues, but their ineffectiveness in deterring crime called for their inevitable demise, thus marking the birth of the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 (WCA). Admittedly, the WCA has been celebrated to be the most progressive wildlife conservation act in Malaysia. I. INTRODUCTION
Malaysia is one of the seventeen megadiverse countries globally, home to a wide array of ecosystems, both marine and terrestrial.[1] The core of its terrestrial biodiversity lies in tropical rainforests — a remarkable ecological legacy that has developed over 130 million years resulting in various flora and fauna. However, such rich biodiversity is no stranger to perilous situations. In Malaysia, countless species are threatened by poaching, trafficking, smuggling across national borders, hunting without a license for international trade and encroachment into protected areas.[2] Illegally harvested wildlife from our rainforests may eventually make their way into pet trades or be consumed as exotic meat and traditional medicine.[3] Legislation enacted for the protection of terrestrial wildlife in Malaysia varies according to jurisdiction. In Malaysia, the Federal Constitution provides for the protection of wild animals and wild birds under the Concurrent List (List III of the Ninth Schedule).[4] This means that both the federal and state government may enact laws to protect wildlife. The first attempt to harmonise wildlife laws on the federal level came in the form of the Wild Animals and Birds Protection Ordinance 1955.[5] However, the Ordinance was afterwards updated and replaced by the Protection of Wild Life Act 1972 (PWLA) which applies to Peninsular Malaysia and the Federal Territory of Labuan.[6] Wildlife in Sarawak and Sabah are respectively governed by the Wild Life Protection Ordinance 1988[7] and the Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997.[8]
1 Comment
10/3/2021 0 Comments Towards Liberating the Native Territorial Domain in Sarawak by Adopting the Torrens SystemWritten by Fabian Meringgai ak Sebastian, a third-year law student of the Faculty of Law, University of Malaya. Edited by Chelsea Ho Su Ven. Reviewed by Luc Choong and Celin Khoo Roong Teng. Indisputably, Sarawak is rich in its nonpareil cultural diversity, which brings about the peculiar legal status of native customary land in the state. The natives’ proprietary rights over traditional land are deeply rooted in the various social practices and customs of the native ethnicities therein. Throughout this article, the author unveils his outlook on the Sarawak state government’s initiative towards protecting native customary land in peril. I. UNDERSTANDING THE TORRENS SYSTEM
The Torrens system is a land registration system introduced in South Australia by Sir Robert Richard Torrens in 1858.[1] The introduction of which in Malaysia and its subsequent emergence has presumably played a role in resolving the intricacies of land ownership faced in the country, especially in Sarawak. Under this system, the registration of land functions as conclusive evidence signifying the ownership and interests attached thereto. The objective of the Torrens system can be seen in a statement made by Lord Watson in Gibbs v Messer,[2] that is ‘to save persons dealing with registered proprietors from the trouble and expense of going behind the register, in order to investigate the history of their author’s title, and to satisfy themselves of its validity’. There are two fundamental principles of the Torrens system, namely the mirror principle and the curtain principle. The mirror principle portrays a concept in which the land title mirrors all relevant and material details that a prospective purchaser, lessee and chargee ought to know. This means that a person can obtain all such material information of the land, based on what is endorsed on the register document of title and the issue document of title — thereupon improving the efficiency of land transactions. On the other hand, the curtain principle is a concept that dispenses with the need to look beyond the register — a metaphoric curtain — as the land title itself provides all relevant information reflecting the validity of the same. Ostensibly, this ‘curtain’ is where the principle took its name from. |