AELB - a case of dumb and dumber?

YOURSAY 'Without it in black and white, how can AELB ensure Lynas picks up its radioactive rubbish on the way out?'

AELB: Lynas' promise to ship wastes out is non-binding

LittleGiant: I am simply aghast with the Atomic Energy Licensing Board's (AELB) statement that "it was never a condition of the licence" to get a foolproof 100 percent legally binding commitment from rare earth processing plant Lynas to ship out the radioactive wastes.

Something appears to be fundamentally not right with the structure of AELB as its functions are "limited by laws and regulations". What is the need for AELB if it lacks and/or does not have the legal powers to enforce its conditions?

2ctsworth: AELB director-general Raja Abdul Aziz Raja Adnan, it seems your agreement with Lynas looks flimsy, similar to the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) loan.

At best, it's a gentlemen's agreement and an open invitation to misdeeds. And in the next breath, you say the waste will be non-existent. Who are you kidding?

Odin: Raja Abdul Aziz, the late Samuel Goldwyn once said that an oral contract (agreement) was not worth the paper it was written on. That is self-explanatory.

Pray tell how laws and regulations prevent your agency from seeking a written commitment from a particular operator, in this case Lynas?

Intheair: Lynas will for sure move on after enjoying many years of tax-free holiday here. Without it in black and white, how can AELB ensure Lynas picks up its radioactive rubbish on the way out?

By then, the profit would be in the bank and Lynas will not need AELB's licence any more. For all it cares, AELB can go fly a kite then.

Lynas' shares jumped 50 percent when AELB issued the licence. Wonder who had hit the jackpot?

Paul Warren: Are these guys dumb or are they dumber? I have seen licences issued with conditions attached on very insignificant matters. And here, they fail to impose the most important condition in the licence.

It is these things that makes one think that there must be pay-offs. Being Malaysian, what else do you expect me to think?

Anonymous #05023297: Great reasoning. In commercial parlance, it means I will not take responsibility for it and the future generations will have to bear the costs, whilst the money have already migrated to Australia.

Onyourtoes: Yes, we are a government of pledges and promises and of "various steps and considerations" based on someone's whims and fancies. Welcome to the land of nincompoops.

Quigonbond: In not so many words, the federal government has once again failed badly at negotiations. It raises a question whether the omissions are accidental or deliberate.

Either way, it reminds us of either incompetence or corruption of those in official position, and does not bode well for Putrajaya as a whole.

MfM: Non-binding commitment? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Commitment means you are bound to fulfill your obligations. By implication, AELB has admitted they are going to let Lynas house the waste in Malaysia. So they've been lying all along.

The issuance of the TOL is simply to fulfill the needs of AELB's political masters. My biggest surprise is why the Pahang palace is silent on the matter when it involves the well-being of the Pahang rakyat?

Swipenter: If it is mandatory for Lynas to ship out the waste, they would never have built the plant here.

Australians don't want the waste in their own backyard just like they don't unwanted refugees in their country. They are only interested in the refined rare metals and the qualified refugees that would benefit their country.

On the other hand, Malaysia under the Umno-led administration welcomes polluting industries disguised and justified as FDI (foreign direct investment) and unskilled migrants.

FellowMalaysian: If Lynas is so sure that the leach-waste does not pose any hazardous harm as they have claimed, why would they have to commit to ship them out when they are not contractually required to do so?

And AELB assumed that Lynas will commit to shipping the wastes out and took this into account in their award of TOL, but did not bother to include this commitment in granting the licence?

Even though the laws of the country doesn't require you to do so, when offered, why can't it be included as a pre-condition? It sounds like the authorities are favouring the applicants at the expense of carrying out their regulatory duties.

Ferdtan: AELB, for issuing the temporary operating licence (TOL) to Lynas without the express condition being imposed on the Lynas' commitment to ship out all of its water leach purification (WLP) waste from its rare-earth processing plant in Gebeng, Kuantan, you've allowed an escape clause for them.

It is unthinkable for an enforcing licencing board to be so lax that they are willing to take a non-binding promise of licensee as a firm commitment. There is more to it that meets the eye. Something is terribly rotten in AELB.

Lone_star: Of late, funny things have been going on in Bolehland: Things like consensual statutory rape, seditious mooning of photos and now non-binding promises and commitments.

Can the attorney-general or his officers define all these things for the rakyat? - Malaysiakini