THE EFFECTIVENESS OF BIODIVERSITY LAW
JOHN COPELAND NAGLE*
JOURNAL OF LAND USE [Vol. 24:2 Spring, 2009] BIODIVERSITY LAW 237
Malaysia is one of twelve “megadiversity” countries that collectively
contain nearly sixty percent of the world’s species,168 though
much of the nation’s biodiversity remains unknown. The country is
divided into two parts: Peninsular Malaysia, which occupies the
Malay Peninsula down to the city-state of Singapore; and East Ma-
168. See M.T. Abdullah, Andrew Alek Tuen & Faisal Ali Anwarali Khan, Universiti
Malaysia Sarawak Contributions Towards Biodiversity and Protected Area Management, in
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH HORNBILL WORKSHOP ON PROTECTED AREAS AND
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 273 (2005).
laysia, which consists of the states of Sabah and Sarawak on the
northern side of the island of Borneo.169 The nation gained its independence
from Great Britain in 1957, and for two years, until it
became an independent city-state, it included Singapore at the
southern tip of the Malaysian peninsula. About twenty-three million
people live in Malaysia, and approximately a third of those
people reside in or near the capital city of Kuala Lampur in the
middle of the Malaysian peninsula.170
Nearly twenty million acres of forests cover sixty percent of
Malaysia’s land.171 Malaysia’s mangrove forests support a broad
variety of flora and fauna. There are 1.54 million hectacres of peat
swamp forests, most of which are in Sarawak, that comprise seventy-
five percent of Malaysia’s wetlands and host such rare species
as the orangutan, probiscus monkey, and Sumatran rhinoceros.
172 But this biodiversity faces several serious threats. Malaysia
quickly evolved from a nation with no manufacturing industry at
the time of its independence in 1957, to a leading provider of petroleum,
palm oil, forest products, and rubber by the beginning of the
twenty-first century.173 Unsustainable timber extraction, along
with the conversion of forests and other lands to agricultural and
industrial uses, are probably the greatest threats. Hunting, forest
fires as a land use tool, expanded tourism, marine pollution, destructive
fishing techniques, and the lowering of groundwater
tables affect biodiversity as well. Attitudes toward biodiversity are
changing in light of these threats. Malaysia’s mangrove forests
were considered “a wasteland” as recently as the 1980s; now they
are regarded as ecologically valuable.174 The famed naturalist Alfred
Russell Wallace shot seventeen orangutans in Sarawak in
1855; now the primates are the subject of determined protection.175
169. See CHEN HIN KEONG, TRAFFIC, AMALAYSIAN ASSESSMENT OF THE WORLD LIST
OF THREATENED TREES 1 (2004).
170. KEONG, supra 169 note, at 1.
171. See CHEN HIN KEONG, A MALAYSIAN ASSESSMENT OF THE WORLD LIST OF
THREATENED TREES 2 (2004).
172. See U.N. DEV. PROGRAMME, MALAYSIA’S PEAT SWAMP FORESTS: CONSERVATION
AND SUSTAINABLE USE 9-10 (2006); see also Alexander K. Sayok et al., Management of Peat
Swamp Forest: Case Study of Loagan Bunut National Park, Sarawak, Malaysia, in
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH HORNBILL WORKSHOP ON PROTECTED AREAS AND
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 90 (2005) [hereinafter SEVENTH HORNBILL WORKSHOP]; Detailed
studies of other species appear in PROCEEDINGS OF THE EIGHTH HORNBILLWORKSHOP
ON PROTECTED AREAS AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 7-158 (2006) [hereinafter EIGHTH
173. See KEONG, supra note 169, at 1.
174. Paul Chai P.K., Management of the Mangrove Forests of Sarawak, in SEVENTH
HORNBILLWORKSHOP, supra note 172, at 89.
175. See Paul Sing Tyan, History of Orangutan Research in Sarawak, in EIGHTH
HORNBILLWORKSHOP, supra note 172, at 170-74.
Malaysia’s goal is to become a world leader in conservation, research,
and sustainable utilization of tropical biodiversity by
2020.176 Toward that end, the country has enacted a spectrum of
legislation aimed at protecting biodiversity, a trend that began
when the country was still under British rule. The first administration
to govern Malaysian environmental law was the British enacted
Federal Land Development Agency, which was replaced by
the National Land Council when Malaysia became independent.
Both agencies were initially concerned more with administration,
rural development, and poverty alleviation than ecological conservation,
but Malaysia’s biodiversity and conservation laws have
evolved from them.177 The National Forestry Policy and the National
Wildlife Act were passed in 1972.178 The National Wildlife
Act allows states to designate forests protected by the National
Forest Policy as either wildlife reserves or wildlife sanctuaries.179
Reserves offer more general environmental protection, while
sanctuaries target biodiversity more specifically by defending individual
species in addition to offering the general protections.180 In
1980, the National Parks Act amended the National Wildlife Act to
establish national parks for the protection of wildlife and areas of
historical and cultural importance.181 The Act has never been applied
in West Malaysia, which has only one national park that was
established by the British in 1939.182 Adding to this wildlife protection,
Malaysia passed the Wildlife Protection Ordinance in 1958,
which banned the commercial sale of wildlife and wildlife products.
183 The law contains exceptions that allow aboriginals and rural
communities to continue to rely on wildlife meat for their own
sustenance. The law also fails to regulate the destruction of the
habitat of endangered species.184
The National Forestry Policy regulates “replanting, enrichment
planting, extraction methods, and proper planning schedules for
concessions.”185 It also outlines plans for local communities to “obtain
control of exploitation rights, and to restrict trade in non-
176. See MINISTRY OF SCI., ENV’T & TECH., MALAYSIA’S NATIONAL POLICY ON
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 1 (1998) [hereinafter MALAYSIAN NATIONAL POLICY].
177. See Robert M. Hardaway, Karen D. Dacres & Judy Swearingen, Tropical Forest
Conservation Legislation and Policy: A Global Perspective, 15 WHITTIER L. REV. 919,
180. See id.
181. See National Parks Act, 1980 (Malay.).
182. See Hardaway, Dacres & Swearingen, supra note 177, at 937.
183. See MALAYSIAN NATIONAL POLICY, supra note 176, at 15.
184. See id. at 14 (“[S]pecies endangered due to habitat destruction are not protected
by way of a national law for endangered species.”).
185. Hardaway, Dacres & Swearingen, supra note 177, at 935-36.
timber forest produce.”186 At the same time, the policy tries to regulate
land use and its environmental impact by balancing the
rights of aboriginal forest dwellers on the one hand and the need
for stronger protection on the other. Stronger protection has come
in the form of regulating urban expansion policy, establishing national
parks, and greater conservation of water courses.187 But
many of the states oppose what they perceive as an encroachment
on their territory, and as of 1994, Sarawak refused to be a signatory
to the policy.188
The National Forestry Act was passed in 1984 to bolster the
Forestry Policy, setting aside funds for the Forest Development
Fund and classifying forests into major categories: production, protection,
recreation, wildlife, research, and federal.189 One of the
problems with this system has been that Malaysia assumes unclassified
forests to be in the “production” category, and thus open
for timber exploitation.190 Because the logging and timber industry
is very profitable, the government has little incentive to re-classify
production forests as protection forests when new endangered species
or environmental threats appear.191 At present, the law provides
an excellent framework for ecological conservation, but because
of the profit of the timber industry, the classification system
lacks the power to effectively adapt to the forests’ changing
Malaysia has also enacted several other laws and policies targeted
toward protecting biodiversity. The Environmental Quality
Act of 1974 provides an extensive framework for Malaysia’s environmental
law.192 Other laws and policies include the Fisheries Act
of 1985, a National Policy on Biological Diversity, and the Sarawak
Biodiversity Ordinance of 1997.193 The biodiversity policies outline
goals for preserving various ecosystems, providing funding and research,
and tying Malaysia’s biodiversity to its unique culture and
heritage.194 The 1998 National Policy on Biological Diversity listed
twenty-six federal and state laws that are relevant to the protection
of Malaysia’s biodiversity.195 Yet that same policy lamented
the lack of “single comprehensive legislation in Malaysia which
186. Id. at 936.
189. Id. at 937.
192. Azmi Sharom, Ten Years After Rio: Implementing Sustainable Development, 6
SING. J. INT’L&COMP. L. 855, 863 (2002).
193. Id. at 875.
194. MALAYSIAN NATIONAL POLICY, supra note 176, at 3.
195. Id. at 15.
relates to biological diversity conservation and management as
Malaysia’s unique federal system affects biodiversity protection
too. The two states of Malaysian Borneo, Sabah and Sarawak, enjoy
significant autonomy, including autonomy over natural resources.
The Sarawak Biodiversity Regulations promulgated in
2004 focus on biodiversity in protected areas.197 One regulation, for
example, makes it illegal to “enter and collect or take away any
biological resources from a State land forest, forest reserve, protected
forest, national park, nature reserve, or Wild Life Sanctuary
without a permit issued” to facilitate research.198 Sarawak relies
upon the Sarawak Forestry Corporation, created by the state legislature
in 1995, to manage and conserve its forests. The idea of a
separate corporation arose
when the International Tropical Timber Organisation
(ITTO) mission to Sarawak identified a number of weaknesses
that must be identified if the State is to sustainably
manage its forests. The ITTO recommended a new model,
independent of the civil service be given this task, as the
Department of Forests has many constraints and limits to
effectively achieve sustainable forest management.199
The corporation is also responsible for managing Sarawak’s eighteen
national parks, four wildlife sanctuaries, and five nature reserves,
totaling over 500,000 hectacres.200
One of those parks, Bako National Park was established in
1957 and is located just west of Sarawak’s capital city of Kuching.
Bako is small but “probably the best place in Sarawak for wildlife
experience.”201 The park contains seven different ecosystems, ranging
from mangrove forests, to grasslands, to a peat swamp forest.
It also contains a number of remarkable species of animals and
plants, such as the Borneo bearded pig, and six types carnivorous
pitcher plants. Bako is most famous for its population of 150 probiscus
monkeys, extremely odd-looking creatures that live only on
196. Id. at 14.
197. See Sarawak Biodiversity Center Ordinance, 1997, LVIX SARAWAK GOV’T GAZ. 97
(2004), available at http://www.sbc.org.my/downloads/reg_2004.pdf.
198. Id. at 103.
199. Sarawak Forestry Corp., About Us: FAQ, http://www.sarawakforestry.com/htm/
aboutus-faq.asp (last visited June 13, 2009).
200. Sarawak Forestry Corp., National Park, http://www.sarawakforestry.com/htm/
snp.asp (last visited June 13, 2009).
201. See Bako National Park, http://www.forestry.sarawak.gov.my/forweb/np/np/bako.htm
(last visited June 13, 2009) (“The park has been a protected area since 1957, so the animals
are less wary of humans.”).
Borneo.202 A guide to the park boasts that “[t]otal and effective protection
of these attractive animals in the park means that they no
longer feel threatened by people and are readily visible along trails
near the Park Headquarters.”203 Bako was Malaysia’s first “totally
protected area,” which means that conservation is the primary
management objective, while secondary objectives include
recreation, research, education, and monitoring of visitor activities.
204 Yet park officials cite inadequate information, insufficiently
trained personnel, dying mangrove stands, a lack of research funding,
and even the possibility of poaching as threats to the management
of the unknown number of probiscus monkeys living in
Bako.205 More ominously, in other parts of Sarawak, probiscus
monkeys are vulnerable to habitat loss and illegal hunting; the
state created a buffer zone of other protected areas to protect the
monkeys in Bako since the park is too small to sustain a viable
population.206 Altogether, Malaysia has protected almost thirty-one
percent of its land as national parks, nature reserves, or wilderness
areas, far more than the world average of roughly eleven percent.207
202. See HANS P. HAZEBROEK & ABANG KASHIM BIN ABANG MORSHIDI, A GUIDE TO
BAKO NATIONAL PARK: SARAWAK, MALAYSIAN BORNEO 1 (2006) (“An encounter with longnosed
Prosbiscus monkeys in their natural habitat is for many people the highlight of their
trip to Sarawak.”); id. at 31-32 (describing the monkey as “one of the world’s most wonderful
primates” and “one of the most unusual animals in the world”); Bako National Park, supra
note 201 (”A jungle encounter with a group of probiscus is likely to be the highlight of your
trip to Bako.”); see also Simon Elegant, Sarawak: A Kingdom in the Jungle, N.Y. TIMES,
July 13, 1986, at p. 19. (reporting that “some of nature’s most unusual and flamboyant creations”
flourish in Bako).
203. HAZEBROEK & MORSHIDI, supra note 202, at 5. My visit to Bako confirmed this
claim: I saw dozens of prosbiscus monkeys, silvered-leaf monkeys, long-tailed macaques, a
cluster of Nepenthes rafflesiana pitcher plants, a venomous Wagler’s pit viper, and a green
vine snake during two days in March 2008.
204. See Desmond Dick Cotter, Wetlands Management in Sarawak, in SEVENTH
HORNBILL WORKSHOP, supra note 172, at 73 (noting that Bako’s status as the first Totally
Protected Area); Jin anak Iman Nelson, Protection of Totally Protected Areas in Sarawak, in
SEVENTH HORNBILL WORKSHOP, supra note 172, at 230; see also Charles Leh M.U., Biodiversity
of Mangrove Forests, in SEVENTH HORNBILL WORKSHOP, supra note 172, at 168 (citing
Bako as the best example in Sarawak of efforts to develop mangrove forests as a tourist
attraction); A. Manap Ahmad, The Bako National Park Customer Service Excellence Initiative,
in SEVENTH HORNBILL WORKSHOP, supra note 172, at 308; Cynthia L.M. Chin, Susan
A. Moore & Tabatha J. Wallington, Ecotourism in Bako National Park, Borneo: Visitors’
Perspectives on Environmental Impacts and Their Management, 8 J. SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
20, 22 (2000) (citing L. GOOD, BAKO NATIONAL PARK: AMANAGEMENT PLAN (1988)) (indicating
that seventy-nine percent of the visitors to the park support more conservation education
and sixty percent would limit the number of visitors).
205. See Mohammad Kasyfullah bin Zaini & Siali anak Aban, Study on Proboscis Monkeys
at Bako National Park (Past, Present and Future) and Its Implications for Park Management,
in SEVENTH HORNBILL WORKSHOP, supra note 172, at 225. The estimates of the
proboscis monkey population in Bako range from 106 to 275. See id. at 223.
206. See HAZEBROEK&MORSHIDI, supra note 202, at 36-37.
207. See World Resources Institute, http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/biodiversityprotected/
country-profile-114.html (last visited June 13, 2009).
Commercial exploitation is a key component of Malaysia’s approach
to biodiversity. According to one commentator, “[t]he genetic
material contained in Malaysia’s abundant tropical plant species
is a potential source of commercially valuable pharmaceutical
products, and the richness of Malaysia’s forest and marine environments
offers some of the finest nature-based tourism opportunities
in the world.”208 Malaysia’s National Policy on Biological Diversity
adds that “[w]ith the right strategy, Malaysia could capture
a large slice” of the lucrative floriculture industry, thanks to the
“great potential for promoting indigenous flowers from our forests.”
209 Ecotourism also features prominently in Malaysia’s efforts
to conserve its biodiversity.210
The enforcement of laws governing biodiversity remains a challenge.
On the positive side, the designation of forest reserves has
halted commercial logging in many protected areas.211 The Deramakot
Forest Reserve in Sabah has been especially successful,
thanks to fifty-four field personnel responsible for implementing a
management plan that combines sustainability and multiple-use
principles.212 A 2007 study of that reserve credited the forest’s
management for yielding denser population of endangered large
animals, such as Asian elephants, while also emphasizing the importance
of “political commitment from state leaders.”213 But enforcement
lags in other contexts. The National Policy on Biological
Diversity admitted that “most development plans relegate the notion
of conservation to a low priority status.”214 Budgets for government
enforcement of the laws are limited.215 Marine parks suffer
water pollution from unregulated activities that occur on the
208. Peter W. Kennedy, Managing Biodiversity: Policy Issues and Challenges 1 (Oct.
1999) (unpublished manuscript), available at http://web.uvic.ca/~pkennedy/Research/
209. MALAYSIAN NATIONAL POLICY, supra note 176, at 5.
210. See Victor Luna Amin, Park Guiding: The Way Forward, in SEVENTH HORNBILL
WORKSHOP, supra note 172, at 254-65 (describing how park guides can interpret biodiversity
for visitors); Oswald Braken Tisen, Conservation and Tourism: A Case Study of Longhouses
Communities In and Adjacent to Batang Ai National Park, Sarawak, Malaysia, in
SEVENTH HORNBILLWORKSHOP, supra note 172, at 296-307.
211. See U.N. DEV. PROGRAMME, supra note 172, at 22 (“No commercial logging has taken
place within the Klias peat swamp boundaries since its designation as a forest reserve.”).
212. See Peter Lagan, Sam Mannan & Hisashi Matsubayashi, Sustainable Use of Tropical
Forests by Reduced-impact Logging in Deramakot Forest Reserve, Sabah, Malaysia, 22
ECOLOGICAL RES. 414, 415 (2007).
213. Id. at 420.
214. MALAYSIAN NATIONAL POLICY, supra note 176, at 10.
215. See Melvin Gumal, Keynote Address, TPA Management and Communities: Conserving
Totally Protected Areas With Rural Communities Living in and Around Those Areas,
in EIGHTH HORNBILL WORKSHOP, supra note 172, at 229 (noting that the number of Totally
Protected Areas grew by ninety-two percent between 1992 and 2000, but the management
budget increased by only fifty-nine percent); Wildred S. Landong & Oswald Braken Tisen,
Keynote Address, Biodiversity Conservation—The Way Forward, in EIGHTH HORNBILL
WORKSHOP, supra note 172, at 329 (citing funding constraints).
adjacent shore.216 TRAFFIC complains that Malaysia’s forest departments
lack the legal authority and the training to combat the
illegal timber trade.217 Sarawak Forestry itself admits that it is
incapable of arresting the “element of organized crime whereby
local gangsters are employed to extract timber illegally from Park
areas.”218 A 2006 report prepared by the Department of Wildlife
and National Parks in Peninsular Malaysia identified “[a] worrying
trend” involving the discovery of “vast quantities” of clouded
monitors, “presumably for smuggling activities.”219 The same report
noted that the number of wildlife cases prosecuted in court (as
opposed to administratively) jumped from twenty-five to sixty in
one year, though “there were no high penalties imposed on any of
the offenders brought to the court.”220 Possession of 2,390 clouded
monitors resulted in a fine of $429, while possession of six birds of
paradise earned six months in prison.221
Malaysia struggles with the relationship between biodiversity
and the needs of indigenous communities. Its National Policy on
Biological Diversity proclaims that “[t]he role of local communities
in the conservation, management and utilisation of biological diversity
must be recognized and their rightful share of benefits
should be ensured.”222 Nonetheless, one scholar has argued that
government officials, both during colonial times and since independence,
view local uses of natural resources as “unacceptable
and in need of state intervention, while extra-local uses and
abuses of natural resources have been protected.”223 For example,
while local uses of the forest are strictly regulated, forestry department
officials “plan to introduce rabbits into the [Similiu] forest
reserve so that the forest officers [can] hunt while on retreat.”
224 Even when the law protects them, indigenous communities
and local biodiversity are harmed by unregulated develop-
216. See Sharom, supra note 192, at 876.
217. CHEN HIN KEONG & BALU PERUMAL, IN HARMONY WITH CITES? AN ANALYSIS OF
THE COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN CURRENT FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS AND THE
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF CITES LISTING FOR TIMBER SPECIES IN MALAYSIA 1,
218. Nelson, supra note 204, at 236.
219. DEPT. OF WILDLIFE AND NAT’L PARKS IN PENINSULAR MALAY., 2006 ANNUAL
REPORT 55 (2006) [hereinafter 2006 ANNUAL REPORT].
220. Id. at 57.
221. Id. at 174-75.
222. MALAYSIAN NATIONAL POLICY, supra note 176, at 2.
223. Amity A. Doolittle, Powerful Persuasions: The Language of Property and Politics
in Sabah, Malaysia (North Borneo), 1881-1996, 38 MODERN ASIAN STUDIES 821, 844 (2004);
accord EDA GREEN, BORNEO: THE LAND OF RIVER AND PALM 43 (1909) (“Fruit, bamboo and
other trees belong to individuals, but there are frequent disputes about fruit-tree rights, and
fallen fruit is common property. It has been said that the Dyaks are so honest that they
never think of gathering the fruit of a tree belonging to some one else.”).
224. Doolittle, supra note 223, at 840.
ment. The law governing Loagan Bunut National Park in central
Sarawak gives designated indigenous groups the right to fish,
hunt, or gather only within the park.225 But the combination of the
pressure on the land caused by the increasing population in surrounding
villages, and an absence of enforcement has “resulted in
expansion of farming in the park and encroachment into additional
high forest areas.”226 Perhaps it is not surprising that one-third of
the residents near one important biodiversity area in Sarawak
were not willing to surrender their customary land rights in exchange
for conservation measures.227 Malaysia is aware of the
problem, and it is taking numerous actions to involve indigenous
communities in biodiversity conservation. In Sarawak, for example,
the government has appointed 4,500 community leaders as
Honorary Wild Life Rangers “to act as ‘ears and eyes’ of the government”
and “to report illegal activities to the wildlife authorities
The EIA process also complicates matters. Allowing states to
have such a significant influence on forestry law is problematic,
since focus has been “on administration [rather] than conservation.”
229 There are frequent conflicts over whether the process is
within the jurisdiction of the Malaysian national government or
state governments.230 Furthermore, when the EIA falls under state
control, there are wide disparities among the standards used. In
fact, several sites have already fallen victim to poor state EIA
planning, and now the federal government has been left to clean
up the environmental fallout.231 On a brighter note, however, the
federal government is attempting to remedy these issues by
amending the 1960 Land Conservation Act and the 1965 National
Land Code and by making states more accountable for
Malaysia is actively involved in international ecological efforts.
Malaysia is a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity,
CITES, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the International
Timber Organization, and a signatory to the International
Timber Agreement of 1994 and the Ramsar Wetlands Conven-
225. See U.N. DEV. PROGRAMME, supra note 172, at 19-20; see also Sayok, supra note
172, at 95-99 (discussing the management of Logan Bunut National Park).
226. Id. at 20.
227. See Reuben Clements et al., Limestone Karsts of Southeast Asia: Imperiled Arks of
Biodiversity, 56 BIOSCIENCE 733, 739 (2006).
228. Engkamat Lading, Local Community Participation in the Management of Lanjak
Entimau Wildlife Sanctuary, in EIGHTH HORNBILLWORKSHOP, supra note 172, at 270.
229. See Hardaway, Dacres & Swearingen, supra note 177, at 935.
230. See id.
231. See Sharom, supra note 192, at 886-87.
232. MALAYSIAN NATIONAL POLICY, supra note 176, at 15.
tion.233 Additionally, Malaysia relies upon partnerships with foreign
governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
around the world. The United Nations Development Programme
and the Danish government, for example, jointly donated more
than $8.3 million to efforts designed to improve management of
Malaysia’s peat swamp forests.234 At the same time, Malaysia has
opposed the expansion of some international environmental protections,
such as the listing of certain timber species under
CITES.235 More generally, some Malaysian officials resist pressure
from developed countries to further protect the country’s forests. A
former prime minister once remarked that
while the developed countries had destroyed their forests, it
was ‘not fair for them to ask us to earn less from our forests.
Malaysians and local non-governmental organizations
should not get carried away with the so-called environmental
consciousness of the foreigners until we are forced to sacrifice
our forests’ economic importance for their comfort.’236
On a more local level, Borneo has established so-called “peace
parks,” most of which are contiguous to other protected areas.237
Among them are “[t]he Lanjak-Entimau Wildlife Sanctuary in Sarawak[,
which] is contiguous to Batang Ai National Park[,] and the
Gunung Bentuang and Karimun reserves in Kalimantan.”238 Unfortunately,
despite this extra layer of protection, the forests are
still threatened by deforestation and subsequent loss of biodiversity.
233. Malaysia Biodiversity Profiles, http://life.nthu.edu.tw/~d868210/jpg/hwk2/content.html
(last visited June 13, 2009).
234. See U.N. DEV. PROGRAMME, supra note 172, at 16.
235. See KEONG&PERUMAL, supra note 217, at 12.
236. KEONG, supra note 169, at 4 (quoting Yang Amat Berbahagia Tun Dr Mahathir
Mohamad’s remarks at the launching of the Science, Technology and Environment
Ministry’s Silver Jubilee celebrations at Putra World Trade Center).
237. John Charles Kunich, Fiddling Around While the Hotspots Burn Out, 14 GEO.