INGENIEUR
It came as no surprise that during the UNorganised
Rio Summit in 1992, Malaysia [then
under Mahathir’s (PM4) administration] was
represented at the Summit by her permanent
representative to the United Nations. Malaysia
had launched a new ambitious national agenda
only the year before — “Vision 2020”: a 30-year
outline prospective plan to obtain developed
nation status for Malaysia by the year 2020.
To achieve this goal, an assumed sustained
growth rate of no less than 7% - 8% on the average
was targeted. Malaysia was then one of the four
Asian Tigers; the other three being Korea, Taiwan
and Singapore. It was to be all systems go. ”In that
case, why waste time gracing a Western Imperialist
forum to suppress developing countries?” went
the argument back then.
Malaysia became “Boleh-land” and too many
Malaysians were over confident, perhaps even
complacent and did not concern ourselves with
globalisation linked to trade liberalisation, which
came calling by way of the WTO in 1995, where
trade was now linked to environmental issues.
The Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference, held in
Doha from November 9-14, 2001, launched the
Doha work programme. Also known as the Doha
Development Agenda, the programme includes:
● Negotiations on agriculture, services,
industrial tariffs, intellectual property,
environment, and dispute settlement; and
● Clarification of elements for a possible
multilateral framework or rules on
investment, competition policy,
transparency in Government procurement
and trade facilitation.
Malaysia’s position concerning Environment
and Trade as per MITI’s August 2007 Publication
on “Malaysia and the WTO” is as follows:
● Malaysia attaches importance to
environmental protection. This is reflected
through our membership in many of the
multilateral environmental agreements
(MEAs) such as the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the
Montreal Protocol and Kyoto Protocol. [For
now, add the Paris Agreement].
● The WTO rules allow for measures to
be taken to safeguard the environment.
These measures however should not be
discriminatory or used as a disguised form
of protection. The current negotiations in
the WTO are aimed at ensuring the mutually
supportive relationship between trade and
environment.
● Malaysia and many other countries have
maintained that existing rules in the WTO
are sufficient to deal with environmental
problems. Malaysia is now examining this
issue further and seeking clarification on
these rules. Trade restrictions are not always
the best solutions to resolve environmental
problems and international co-operation to
promote development, technology transfer
and technical assistance may be a better
means of dealing with global environmental
problems.
Special Note on Trade and the Environment:
It was reported in STARBIZWEEK, Saturday
December 23, 2017 that “… the European Union
(EU) Parliament has passed two resolutions…
on claims that palm oil producers have failed to
achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs), which include responsible consumption,
production and climate action… linking palm oil
to climate change and deforestation…” Interest
groups (e.g. EU “green NGOs”) have “weaponised”
consumerism; as can be seen how the EU has
imposed a ban on palm oil from entering its
market with effect from 2020.
Climate change, greenhouse gases, global
warming and other environmental degradations
are real. Scientifically, they have been proven to be
such a threat to humanity that it motivated certain
environmental activists in 1971 to organise a
worldwide Green Peace movement with the goal:
“to ensure the ability of the Earth to nurture life in
all its diversity”.
Malaysians accept the realities and are
prepared to do the needful. Malaysia being a
trading nation often encounters market forces
determined by consumers who want “green
& clean” products and advanced countries
have more and more “green consumers” with
expectations that are being reflected by global
environmental agendas and accords.
Green consumers in Europe, for example, are
very influential. In the early days of post WWII
and economically recovering Europe, “green”
political parties – influenced by the Green Peace
52 VOL 81 JANUARY-MARCH 2020