Save Our Animals

Heavier penalties needed to clamp down on wildlife traffickers

A recent court ruling which landed Lizard King aka Anson Wong a 6-month jail term and fines of RM190,000 for smuggling 95 boa constrictor is a mere slapdash decision. The sentence passed serves no purpose in deterring the wrongdoings from recurring. Anson Wong was once jailed before in America for 71 months and fined US$60,000.00 under a similar offense. The tame punishment suggests that our government and judiciary take animal smuggling lightly and must put a full stop to illegal wildlife trading.

Anson Wong was detained at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport whilst trying to smuggle the snakes from Penang to Indonesia. It is " fortunate" that the boas escaped from the luggage and were found by an airport worker. Otherwise, the 95 boas together with the rhinocerous vipers and matamata turtle may end up being served on dining tables or as personal pets of collectors of exotic fauna.

Contrary to the Malaysian scenario where one must be caught in possession of animals (otherwise it is not considered a case), in America, the Lacey Act makes it a federal crime which includes those of a foreign country who violate wildlife laws. A wildlife smuggler does not have to be physically caught in possession of an animal to face prosecution charges.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) has categorized endangered species into three groups. Appendix I- animals such as tiger and orangutans are banned for trade as they are close to extinction; Appendix II - less vulnerable creatures which maybe trade under a permit system; and species under Appendix III are protected under national legislation. However, CITES does not provide the same protection for wildlife bred in captivity.

All boa constrictors except one sub-species come under Appendix II. So, only experts like Wong can differentiate whether the smuggled reptiles fall under the sub-species of Appendix II? Moreover, Wong claimed that the animals traded were bred in captivity, and thus did not come under CITES. But where were those creatures bred? Whose responsibility is it to verify? The Judge or Perlihitan?

On the other hand, the Attorney-General’s Chamber has filed an appeal against the Wong’s sentence, calling for a heavier punishment. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment has also stepped up efforts to protect endangered animals. Its Minister, Datuk Uggag Embas said the enforcement of the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 which will be regulated later in the year, provides more serious penalties and will improve the enforcement of laws and regulations on poaching. This shows that our country takes a serious view against poaching. The question is: why should we wait for another Act when existing laws provide conviction with more serious punishment for an offence? Wong had faced a maximum 7 years imprisonment or RM 100,000 per animal or both under the Endangered Species Act 2008.

It is hoped that the new Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 will protect all species found in our country not counting if they are endangered or not. Malaysia is blessed with nature hardly found elsewhere. The flora and fauna here could even be a future income driver by catering to a niche market of travelers bent on eco-tourism. Hence, the urgency to safeguard our wildlife as we cannot afford to lose them.

(Article published at "the Guardian" September 2010)