[Optipitle]

Wednesday September 8, 2010

A tame punishment

THE STAR SAYS . . .

WE had a chance to severely punish a notorious wildlife trader and send a signal that we mean business in repairing our unwelcome reputation as an international hub for this illegal trade. But we blew it. The penalty meted out by the courts to Anson Wong is a mere slap on the wrist, and reflects our inability to get tough with wildlife criminals.

When enacted, the International Trade in Endangered Species Act 2008 had drawn applause for its harsh penalties: a whopping maximum fine of RM100,000for each animal smuggled. Unfortunately, Wong was fined only RM2,000 for each of the 95 boa constrictors stuffed into his suitcase. So he got away with a RM190,000 fine – an amount which the businessman could easily cough out – instead of what could have been a deterrent penalty of close to RM1mil.

The fines pale in comparison with the market price of boa constrictors of between RM200 and RM4,000 each on the Internet. His jail term of six months is also disappointing as the Act provides for a maximum of seven years. Paltry penalties have always been a scourge in the war against wildlife trafficking. The newly implemented Act is meant to overcome this. But when it comes to sentencing, the ball is in the court of the presiding judge.

And it appears the seriousness of wildlife crime is not being fully appreciated despite the Asean Wildlife Enforcement Network and the Federal Courts of Malaysia holding a two-day workshop specifically for the judiciary last year. Wong had an import permit to bring the snakes into Penang but not re-export permits to Indonesia. So he was caught on a technicality. But closer scrutiny reveals unanswered questions. Isn’t it illegal to pack live animals into checked-in luggage under International Air Transport

Association rules, not to mention endanger the lives of passengers? And what about the fact that Wong has a previous conviction in the United States, which landed him 71 months in jail and fined US$60,000 (RM187,000). The man who has earned the monikers “Asian wildlife kingpin” and “Pablo Escobar of the wildlife trade” also had two rhinoceros vipers and a matamata turtle in his bag but there was no case here as these are not trade-regulated species.

Also, the charge against Wong did not specify the sub-species of boa constrictors. All boa constrictors, except for one sub-species, come under Appendix II of the Conven-tion on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites); this means they can be traded, but with permits. Only an expert can differentiate between the sub-species, so what if Wong’s boa constrictors were actually the Appendix I sub-species, the Boa constrictor occidentalis, which is banned from trade?

Perhilitan (Wildlife and National Parks Department) could have built a stronger case if it knew for sure. And did Perhilitan investigate the source of the boa constrictors? Were they really captive-bred as claimed by Wong, and not wild-caught? Dealers routinely use the description “captive-bred” in order to obtain permits, so there could be another offence here.

Yet another unanswered question is why a convicted wildlife trafficker still holds permits to keep and trade in endangered animals. Perhilitan should immediately revoke all licences issued to Wong. For sure, Wong’s “bag act” is not the first. Wildlife crime investigators say stuffing animals in luggage is the smugglers’ preferred modus operandi, along with concealment in shipments of legally approved animals.

Unlike birds which can be noisy, reptiles are usually not drugged when packed into bags. But the animals will surely show up in airport X-ray scanners. So how did Wong’s bag get through the Penang airport security? We need to ask ourselves: Should we condone the trading and keeping of wild animals? Or is it too much to expect Malaysians to care? On the whole, we don’t particularly treat domesticated animals well, so what more creatures of the wild.