• 政府应在批准巴黎协议之际不忘核准《京都协定书多哈修正案》

    (2016年10月27日)沙登区国会议员王健民博士的媒体声明

    政府应在批准巴黎协议之际不忘核准《京都协定书多哈修正案》

    在2016年10月25日的国会问答会议上,我向自然资源和环境部长提问政府何时将核准《京都议定书第二期承诺-多哈修正案》。[1]

    而部长在他的口头答复,表示政府重点会放在“巴黎协议”而非“京都协议”。(他的口头回复的短片可以在youtube上找到: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mlFP-i7cQQ&feature=youtu.be)。他的回答报道也被刊登在第二天的星报上(请参阅下图)

    部长还进一步地表示各国并不对《多哈修正案》感有兴趣,因为目前只有70个国家(截至2016年9月)核准了这项原本需要144个国家(《京都议定书》所有缔约国的四分三)核准的修正案。[2] 他也强调连美国和加拿大都是尚未签署《多哈修正案》的其中两个国家,因而再次证明核准这项修正案不再是政府的优先事项。

    但是,若马来西亚轻易地放弃批准《多哈修正案》而急于核准《巴黎协议》将会是一项错误,因为:

    1. 《多哈修正案》第二期承诺将从2013年执行到2020年,而《巴黎协议》则将在2021年才开始实施。[3] 因此,《京都议定书》第二期承诺与《巴黎协定》并没有出现任何重叠。 因此,在等待《巴黎协议》被启动的同时,全球社会需要确保减少碳排放的措施能继续被实施,而推动第二期承诺才会让这些努力生效。因此,当听到部长表示《京都议定书》和《巴黎协议》有出现重叠时,我感到很震惊。 这并不会是一件乐见的事情,因为就是这名部长和其部门的官员代表我们国家去进行谈判,以便达成一项对我国的环境,社会和经济具有深远影响力的协议。

    2. 尽管《多哈修正案》因核准的国家数目不足而无法生效,但马来西亚也不应就偏离自己的原则和道德立场。事实上,我们应该更尽早地批准,以便确保我们能在它生效之际还来得及为所需的减排数量而作出贡献。 若发达国家核准第二期的减排承诺是义不容辞的话,那作为发展中的马来西亚在批准第二期承诺便更没有任何包袱。这也符合发达国家对气候变迁的历史使命所一贯应承担的责任。 而《第二期承诺》将是最好的一次历史机会。

    3. 就如东盟十个国家其中的七个国家一样,马来西亚作为一个负责任的全球公民,应以身作则核准《多哈修正案》。[4] 除了马来西亚外,尚未核准《多哈修正案》的其它两个东盟国家包括老挝和缅甸则是属于最落后国家的行列。这是否意味着马来西亚逐渐要从属于先进行列的发展中国家退下成为最落后国家的行列?倘若马来西亚连《多哈修正案》都不核准,那能否还在东盟国家中继续有效地倡导和推行解决气候变迁和其他环境课题的政策?

    4. 核准《多哈修正案》将彰显马来西亚并非只会前往纽约高调参与签署仪式,而是真正拥有持续和一致的计划来解决当前的气候变迁课题。

    我呼吁全体内阁应批准政府在核准巴黎协议之际,也要同时核准《京都协定书的多哈修正案》。

    王建民博士
    沙登区国会议员

    [1] http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/doha_amendment/items/7362.php

    [2] https://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/doha_amendment/application/pdf/frequently_asked_questions_doha_amendment_to_the_kp.pdf

    [3] http://www.wri.org/faqs-about-how-paris-agreement-enters-force and https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2016/CN.735.2016-Eng.pdf

    [4] https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-c&chapter=27&clang=_en

  • The Government should ratify the Doha Amendment of the Kyoto Protocol along with the ratification of the Paris Agreement

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, Member of Parliament for Serdang, on the 27th of October 2016

    The Government should ratify the Doha Amendment of the Kyoto Protocol along with the ratification of the Paris Agreement

    In the parliamentary question and answer session on Tuesday, 25th of October, 2016, I asked the Minister of Natural Resources and Environment to explain when the government will ratify the 2nd commitment period (CP2) of the Kyoto Protocol also known as the Doha Amendment.[1]

    In his verbal reply to me in parliament, the Minister said that the focus should be on the Paris Agreement instead of the Kyoto Agreement. (The clip of his verbal reply can be found here on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mlFP-i7cQQ&feature=youtu.be). His reply was given coverage in the Star newspaper the following day (See below)

    The Minister also said that countries were no longer interested in the Doha Amendment since only 70 countries (as of September 2016) had ratified this amendment which requires 144 countries (or 3 quarters of all the parties to the Kyoto Protocol) to ratify.[2] He highlighted the fact that the United States and Canada are among the two countries who have not signed up to the Doha Amendment as proof that ratifying this amendment was no longer a priority.

    It would be a mistake for Malaysia to simply give up on ratifying the Doha Amendment and simply rush to ratify the Paris Agreement for the following reasons:

    1. The Doha Amendment Commitment Period (CP2) runs from 2013 to 2020 while the implementation of Paris Agreement will only start in 2021.[3] Therefore, there is no overlapping between the CP2 of the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. So, while waiting for the Paris Agreement to ‘kick-in’, the global community needs to ensure that measures to decrease carbon emissions continue to take place and that would happened only when the CP2 enters in force. It was quite shocking for me to hear the Minister say that there is an overlap between the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. This does not bode well given that this Minister and his Ministry is leading the negotiations on behalf of the country for an agreement that will have far-reaching environmental, social and economic impacts on us.

    2. Even if the Doha Amendment does not enter into force because an insufficient number of countries have ratified it, Malaysia should not dismiss it from a principle and moral stand point. In fact, we should have ratify yesteryear to contribute to the numbers needed to ensure that it comes into force sooner rather than later. Precisely because only developed countries have obligation to cut their emissions under CP2, it is painless for Malaysia as a developing country to ratify CP2. This is also in line with holding the developed world accountable to its historical responsibilities towards climate change. And CP2 is that last chance.

    3. Malaysia should act as a responsible global citizen and do its part in ratifying the Doha Amendment, just like 7 out of 10 countries in ASEAN.[4] Besides Malaysia, the only other two countries in ASEAN which have not ratified the Doha Amendment are Laos and Myanmar which are from the category of Least Developed Countries (LDC). Is Malaysia regressing from an advanced developing country to become a LDC? Can Malaysia be an effective advocate on climate change and other environmental policies in ASEAN if it does not even ratify the Doha Amendment?

    4. Ratifying the Doha Amendment would show that Malaysia has a sustained and consistent plan towards addressing climate change beyond just going to New York to take part in high profile signing ceremonies.

    I call upon the Cabinet to give approval for the Government to ratify the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol along with the ratification of the Paris Agreement.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

    [1] http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/doha_amendment/items/7362.php

    [2] https://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/doha_amendment/application/pdf/frequently_asked_questions_doha_amendment_to_the_kp.pdf

    [3] http://www.wri.org/faqs-about-how-paris-agreement-enters-force and https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2016/CN.735.2016-Eng.pdf

    [4] https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-c&chapter=27&clang=_en

  • Severe cuts to the Monitoring and Enforcement Budget of the Department of Environment (DOE) needs to be reversed

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang, on the 27th of October, 2016

    Severe cuts to the Monitoring and Enforcement Budget of the Department of Environment (DOE) needs to be reversed

    One of the regular complaints that I receive from residents in my constituency is the issue of noise and emissions of smells by factories which sometimes operate late into the night. When these complaints were highlighted to the Department of Environment (DOE), which oversees the monitoring of these factories, the usual response I receive is that they don’t have enough enforcement officers and a sufficient budget to carry out their monitoring and enforcement duties. More recently, the serious pollution of Sungai Semantan and Sungai Semenyih which resulted in water disruptions affected more than half a million households, was traced back to illegal discharge and dumping of pollutants into the river by irresponsible parties.

    At a time when more resources should be dedicated to monitoring and enforcement, I was shocked to learn that the budget for these activities have been cut from RM105 million in 2016 to RM76.5 million in 2017, a reduction of RM28.5 million or a 27% cut (See Figure 1 below)

    Figure 1: Cut in the budget for Monitoring and Enforcement Activities, 2016 to 2017

    This large cut in the budget for monitoring and enforcement activities will inevitably jeopardise the ability of the DOE to effectively monitor the illegal dumping of pollutants into our rivers by factories and other irresponsible parties.

    At a time when our rivers are increasingly vulnerable to pollution, the monitoring and enforcement budget should be INCREASED by 30% rather than cut by almost 30%. These cuts are unacceptable and I call upon the Finance Minister to reverse these cuts and increase the allocation for monitoring and enforcement activities under the Department of Environment.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming
    Member of Parliament for Serdang

  • 代表在峇冬加里/新古毛的三名选民挑战选举委员会非法搬迁选民和重新划定选区边界而提出司法审核

    (2016年10月24日)沙登区国会议员王健民博士的媒体声明

    代表在峇冬加里/新古毛的三名选民挑战选举委员会非法搬迁选民和重新划定选区边界而提出司法审核

    在2016年10月21日,代表来自雪兰莪的峇冬加里N6和新古毛N7州议席的三名选民的律师向吉隆坡的马来亚高等法院提出司法审核,入禀法庭寻求推翻选委会于2016年4月29日在联邦政府所宪报的重划选区所建议的做法。

    选举委员会是根据1958年选举法令第7条文来通过选民搬动(belah bahagi)的权限。但是选委会无论在国或州议席上并没有权利将选民在不同选区之间进行搬动。除非是在选区重划的框架下进行,不然选委会无论在国或州议席上也没有权利重新修动任何选区的边界。

    在选举委员会于2016年9月15日所宣布的重划选区的报告中,乌鲁雪兰莪P94国席的边界里的峇冬加里和新古毛州议席的边界并不受影响。这意味着,通过“选民搬动”工作而在峇冬加里和新古毛州议席之间被搬动的选民不能在重划选区的公共调查和听证会上表达他们的反对意见。

    因此,申请司法审核便成为了峇冬加里和新古毛的选民的唯一选择,以便寻求推翻选委会的这种非法搬动选民和修动选区边界的做法。

    相比起第十三届大选,经过2016年4月29日的“选民搬动”活动,同样新古毛选区的边界已被修动。(请参阅以下图表一)

    图表一:相比起第十三届大选(蓝色边界)新古毛州议席选区的边界和经过“选民搬动”的选区边界结果白色边界)

    由于非法修动边界,有5,000多名选民便被从峇冬加里州议席搬到新古毛选区。因此,我们有必要申请司法审查来推翻选委会的做法。

    王建民博士
    沙登区国会议员

Page 6 of 195« First...45678...203040...Last »