Strong support for proposed Climate Change Bill
Its chairman, Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye ( pic ), said the long-awaited legislation must go beyond emission reduction and act as a national blueprint for long-term environmental sustainability and resilience.
'This landmark Bill is timely, as Malaysia begins to feel the very real impacts of climate change, from extreme weather and biodiversity loss to food and water insecurity,' he said when contacted on Sunday (July 20).
While commending the government's move to compel industries to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in line with Malaysia's commitments under the 2015 Paris Agreement, Lee stressed the need to embed nature-based solutions at the core of climate action.
'Forests, peatlands, mangroves, and wetlands are our country's natural assets.
"They play a critical role not just in carbon sequestration, but also in protecting communities from floods and preserving biodiversity,' he lamented.
He outlined several key elements that the bill should have, including legal protection for remaining tropical rainforests, peat swamps and coastal ecosystems.
"Large-scale reforestation and afforestation efforts.
"Incentives for indigenous stewardship and community-based forest management," he said.
Lee said legal and financial backing should be given for mangrove restoration, river rehabilitation, and coral reef protection.
"Cross-sector collaboration involving NGOs, local authorities, and academia should be ramped up for ongoing ecological monitoring," he said.
He also called for the introduction of national guidelines to curb deforestation linked to development and agriculture.
"At the same time, promotion of regenerative and climate-smart farming techniques should be conducted," he said.
Lee said mandatory emissions reporting, clearly defined sectoral targets, and strict compliance mechanisms should be introduced, especially for high-emission industries such as energy, transport and manufacturing.
"We also propose the creation of a Green Transition Fund to support small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in adopting greener technologies and practices.
"Malaysia is uniquely placed, with rich biodiversity and natural ecosystems that can be part of the solution.
'A climate law that marries technology with nature is not only more effective, it is more equitable," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
5 hours ago
- New Straits Times
ICJ to hand down watershed climate opinion
THE HAGUE: The world's top court will deliver a seminal ruling laying out what legal obligations countries have to prevent climate change and whether polluters should pay up for the consequences. It is the biggest case ever heard at the International Court of Justice and experts say judges' opinion could reshape climate justice forever, with major impacts on laws around the world. The ICJ advisory opinion is "potentially one of the most consequential legal rulings of our times," said Joie Chowdhury, Senior Attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law, an advocacy group that backs the case. It could "define a new era, where climate justice is not a distant aspiration, but a global mandate for the here and now," added Chowdhury. The United Nations has tasked the 15 ICJ judges to answer two fundamental questions that, according to Chowdhury, "strike at the heart of climate justice." First: What must states do under international law to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions "for present and future generations"? Second: What are the consequences for states whose emissions have caused environmental harm, especially to vulnerable low-lying island states? To help answer these questions, ICJ judges have pored over tens of thousands of pages of submissions from countries and organisations around the world. Analysts say today's ruling is the most consequential of a string of recent rulings on climate change in international law. Courts have become a battleground for climate action as frustration has grown over sluggish progress toward curbing planet-warming pollution from fossil fuels. The Paris Agreement struck through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has rallied a global response to the crisis, but not at the speed necessary to protect the world from dangerous overheating. In December, the iconic Peace Palace in the Hague hosted the court's biggest-ever hearings, with more than 100 nations and groups giving oral statements. In what was billed as a "David Vs Goliath" battle, the debate pitted major wealthy economies against smaller, less developed states most at the mercy of a warming planet. Major polluters, including the US and India, warned the ICJ not to deliver a fresh legal blueprint for climate change, arguing the existing UNFCCC sufficed. The US, which has since withdrawn from the Paris accord, said the UNFCCC contained legal provisions on climate change and urged the court to uphold this regime. But smaller states said this framework was inadequate to mitigate climate change's devastating effects and that the ICJ's opinion should be broader. These states also urged the ICJ to impose reparations on historic polluters. "The cardinal principle is crystal clear. Responsible states are required to make full reparation for the injury they have caused," said Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh representing Vanuatu. These states demanded a commitment and timeline to phasing out fossil fuels, monetary compensation when appropriate, and an acknowledgement of past wrongs. Representatives from island states, many wearing traditional dress as they addressed the court for the first time in their country's history, made passionate pleas to the robed judges. "Despite producing less than 0.01 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, on the current trajectory of GHG emissions, Tuvalu will disappear completely beneath the waves that have been lapping our shores for millennia," said Eselealofa Apinelu from Tuvalu. The ICJ's advisory opinions are not binding upon states, and critics say that top polluters will simply ignore what comes out of the court. But others note the moral and legal clout enjoyed by the world's highest court and hope the opinion will make a tangible difference to national climate change policies. "The impacts of climate change, absolutely dire right now, will become catastrophic as the years go by if we do not course-correct," said Vishal Prasad, director of a campaign by Pacific Island students that pushed the issue before the court. "The urgency of the matter, the seriousness of why we're here, and how important this is, is not lost upon all Pacific Islanders, all small island countries. "That's why we're looking to the ICJ." — AFP
The Star
7 hours ago
- The Star
World Court is poised to mark the future course of climate litigation
THE HAGUE (Reuters) -The United Nations' highest court will deliver an opinion on Wednesday that is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world. Known as an advisory opinion, the deliberation of the 15 judges of the International Court of Justice in The Hague is legally non-binding. It nevertheless carries legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say. 'The advisory opinion is probably the most consequential in the history of the court because it clarifies international law obligations to avoid catastrophic harm that would imperil the survival of humankind," said Payam Akhavan, an international law professor. In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, also known as the World Court, Akhavan represented low-lying, small island states that face an existential threat from rising sea levels. In all, over a hundred states and international organisations gave their views on the two questions the U.N. General Assembly had asked the judges to consider. They were: what are countries' obligations under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for countries that harm the climate system? Wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities. Developing nations and small island states argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid. PARIS AGREEMENT AND AN UPSURGE IN LITIGATION In 2015, at the conclusion of U.N. talks in Paris, more than 190 countries committed to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). The agreement has failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Late last year, in the most recent "Emissions Gap Report," which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the U.N said that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C (5.4 F) above pre-industrial levels by 2100. As campaigners seek to hold companies and governments to account, climate‑related litigation has intensified, with nearly 3,000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. So far, the results have been mixed. A German court in May threw out a case between a Peruvian farmer and German energy giant RWE, but his lawyers and environmentalists said the case, which dragged on for a decade, was a still victory for climate cases that could spur similar lawsuits. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries, said in another advisory opinion its members must cooperate to tackle climate change. Campaigners say Wednesday's court opinion should be a turning point and that, even if the ruling itself is advisory, it should provide for the determination that U.N. member states have broken the international law they have signed up to uphold. "The court can affirm that climate inaction, especially by major emitters, is not merely a policy failure but a breach of international law," said Fijian Vishal Prasad, one of the law students that lobbied the government of Vanuatu in the South Pacific Ocean to bring the case to the ICJ. Although it is theoretically possible to ignore an ICJ ruling, lawyers say countries are typically reluctant to do so. "This opinion is applying binding international law, which countries have already committed to. National and regional courts will be looking to this opinion as a persuasive authority and this will inform judgments with binding consequences under their own legal systems," Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, said. The court will start reading out its opinion at 3 p.m. (1300 GMT). (Reporting by Stephanie van den Berg, additional reporting by Ali Withers in Copenhagen; editing by Barbara Lewis)
The Sun
7 hours ago
- The Sun
Lessons not learnt despite repeated audit warnings
PETALING JAYA: Despite the Auditor-General's annual reports repeatedly flagging irregularities and weaknesses in government departments, lessons are rarely learnt and accountability remains weak, said former auditor-general Tan Sri Ambrin Buang (pic). 'I've always believed the report offers valuable insights. But who's actually willing to read and act on them?' he asked. The onus, he said, is on controlling officers such as the secretaries-general and department heads, to take audit findings seriously and initiate reform. 'The auditor-general can highlight the problems, but it's up to ministries and agencies to follow through. Without ownership, the same issues will keep resurfacing.' His comments come in the wake of the latest report, which has once again brought to light a familiar list of financial mismanagement, weak internal controls and procedural breaches. The Auditor-General's Report (Series 2) released on Monday, flagged serious irregularities and weaknesses in projects and programmes involving seven ministries. Five audits involving seven ministries, with an overall cost of RM48.873 billion, were reported. Alliance for a Safe Community chairman Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye said the government must treat the findings with urgency or risk normalising weak accountability. He said repeated red flags reflect not just administrative lapses but also a deeper culture of negligence. 'Delays in project completion, overpayments, failure to follow procedure and procurement without documentation – these aren't minor slip-ups. They signal systemic failures and a lack of integrity among those entrusted with public funds.' Lee said the latest report once again exposed a familiar cycle of financial mismanagement, procurement irregularities and regulatory breaches, often with little consequence. 'We urge the government to act swiftly. If no disciplinary or legal action is taken against those responsible, the cycle will continue. Without consequences, there's no deterrence.' He called for the beefing up of internal audit units, making them independent and capable of real-time monitoring, not just post-event reviews. 'There also needs to be greater transparency in procurement. An online dashboard should be created so the public can track how government funds are being spent.' Lee pushed for periodic integrity audits, particularly for high-risk departments, to detect early signs of misconduct and not just financial irregularities. He also called for parliamentary oversight to be tightened. 'The Public Accounts Committee must have the authority to summon not just department heads, but ministers too. Accountability should not stop at middle management. The public deserves better. Malaysians are paying taxes, yet the people entrusted with those funds behave with carelessness or, worse, dishonesty.' Meanwhile, political analyst Prof Dr Azmi Hassan said the AG report is a vital tool for transparency but not every issue flagged should be treated as a scandal. The Nusantara Academy for Strategic Research fellow noted that many findings in the report stem from operational shortcomings rather than outright mismanagement. 'Some reflect inefficiencies that can be addressed internally without external scrutiny,' he said. Azmi cautioned that while the report helps expose serious breaches, it can also paint an overly grim picture by highlighting issues that are routine administrative challenges. 'For example, when it comes to university research grants, it's hard to directly link funding to immediate commercial returns. It's not something you can measure in simple terms.' He added that ministries and agencies should proactively fix such issues before they appear in audit reports. 'Agencies should not wait for problems to be exposed. They should correct them as part of good governance. When there's clear misuse of funds, that's when enforcement bodies like the MACC must step in.' Azmi also stressed the importance of distinguishing between poor management and operational lag. 'The AG Report should not be seen in black and white – it is more nuanced than that.'
