YOURSAY | So deforestation will be good for orangutans too?

 

YOURSAY | ‘What a brainwave from a forester, which conservationists never thought of.’

'Abdul Khalim must be thinking of his cat at home' - Kepong MP

MS: Deforestation is good for tigers? Why not? After all, Malaysia is a unique country where wrong is right and right is wrong.

Where corruption is highly tolerated, and the corrupt even celebrated and protected. Where deaths in custody and forced disappearances involve those responsible for law and order. Where High Court orders may be ignored by those paid to obey them.

Where it is openly encouraged to elect a corrupt Muslim who stands against a clean, incorruptible non-Muslim. Where discrimination on the basis of race and religion is called affirmative action and is an everyday affair enabled by the Constitution.

Having thought long and hard about it, I think Kelantan Forestry Department director Abdul Khalim Abu Samah is a genius with deep insights into ecology and animal husbandry.

It is a fact that there have been no reports of tigers starving or disappearing in Saudi Arabia. Why? Because there are no forests there.

It's a pity people like Lim Lip Eng are politicising what is a known fact. If the DAP continues on this path of falsehood and lies to confuse the people, the people of Kelantan will not vote for it.

Coward: A lot of commenters, myself included, have been slamming Abdul Kalim for his comment on tigers and land clearing.

Taking a step back, I noted that his title actually says that he may not a forestry expert but rather is a bureaucrat who most likely comes from a management background.

Yes, he is a director, but his post has the word "department" in it. At the state level, the holder of a department director might not be a forestry expert.

In fact, it is better to have a non-forestry expert because the holder has to manage multiple interests for which forestry is one.

This requires different skills from forestry, and having a non-expert prevents undue bias on forestry matters to the detriment of other things. It is fine to have a non-expert as director, as long as he takes and heeds advice from experts.

I am not defending him but simply pointing out the fact that he might be a non-forestry expert, and let's take that into account when we comment on him.

The truth is, even after giving him this benefit, he still fails as a manager. A person holding his post should be intelligent enough to not open his mouth on a topic that is not his expertise but is under his management for the fear that it is interpreted as expert advice.

Secondly, he should have consulted his experts before opening his glob. Finally, and I really don't understand why he did not "get it", just via daily and constant interaction with experts, he should know that he is not qualified to make comments like this and should restrain from doing so.

Dr Raman Letchumanan: One should not blame or simply dismiss Abdul Khalim for his ‘expert’ opinion of how logging increases the Malaysian tiger population.

Worldwide, decades of research, funding and expertise has gone into tiger conservation, but its population has decreased to alarming levels.

Yet no one thought of this obvious solution to cut down thick forests (which hinders the free movement and hunting by tigers), but instead, everyone was calling for conserving forests and their natural habitats.

What a brainwave from a forester, which conservationists the world over never thought of.

But to Abdul Khalim's credit, he is only championing what the National Forestry Act's real intent is and to pander to the politicians and cronies of their favourite hobby, i.e. to plunder our useless forests and turn them into plantations, toxic waste dumps or for mining.

For example, the National Forestry Act 1974 is, for all intents and purposes, primarily for the exploitation of natural resources.

It may be green coated by policies and strategies talking about sustainable management, utilisation and conservation but does not have the effect of law. Of the 117 sections in the Act, only a couple have relevance to creating, protecting or conserving forests.

Section 7 provides for states to constitute permanent reserved forests, but how many new forests have been created? The iconic large forests, such as Taman Negara were created in the early 1900s, and Kuala Langat North Forest Reserve in 1927.

Section 10 provides for several categories of use from timber production to virgin reserved forest. Presumably, virgin forest should be preserved and left untouched but there is no such provision, meaning all are subject to reclassification and exploitation.

He would soon be getting state awards and a promotion for this discovery.

I think Abdul Khalim must have paid a visit to the African savanna where he saw tigers and their prey happily living side by side. Soon, Malaysia will be turned into grasslands before becoming a desert.

Libra: It is about time the people must come to the realisation that those who hold power are not interested in our logic.

It is their world and they are in power and will endeavour to continue to sustain it. Either you are with them or will be alienated/eliminated.

The corruption of mind and system is at the maximum. So what to do?

Change the mindset and prepare for the new norm, and fight to regain the value system and put it in place. That's what needs to be done.

GreenViper4010: Thankfully, someone has come out to publicly censure Abdul Khalim.

Next thing you know, deforestation will be good for orangutans as well as it allows them to make a living off the palm oil plantations which result. That way, they won't get angry and kill people.

GoldenPigeon0510: It looks like everyone is competing with Harith Iskandar to be the best comedian. - Mkini