BACHELOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (HONS) HUMAN RESOURCES

MANAGEMENT

LAW573 (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW)

GROUP ASSIGNMENT: CASE STUDY

PREPARED BY:

1. SITI NURSYAHIRAH BINTI ZAFFENDEE (2020810628)

NAME 2. NUR ALYA AMIRAH BINTI MOHD NIZAM (2020810332)
3. NORSHAHIRA ATIKA BINTI MOHAMMAD ZAMRI
(2020453082)
4. UMI NUR MAISARAH BT RUSLI (2020614678)

5. NURIZZATI BINTI MOHAMAD (2020862014)

GROUP KBA2435D

PREPARED FOR:

MR ZULHELMEY BIN ABDULLAH @ ABD

HALIM

SUBMISSION DATE:
13TH JULY 2022
ISSUE 1: WILD ANIMALS
Issue of the case

The issue of the case is either the State Wildlife Protection and National Parks
Department can take action against Ladang Sawitku Sdn. Bhd. under Wildlife Conservation
Act 2010 since the estate has sent its workers to lay booby traps to keep wild animals such as
elephants away from its plantation. The wildlife management includes prohibitions on
hunting, killing, injuring, capturing or collecting protected species.

Rule/Principle of Law

Based on our understanding towards the case given, action under common law that
can be identified in the case of wild animals under Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 (WCA). It
is an Act to provide for the protection and conservation of wildlife and for matters connected
therewith. This Act provides for the regulation, protection, conservation and management of
wildlife in Malaysia.

To support our study, in Johore in year of 2000, the State Wildlife Protection and
National Parks Department made a shocking discovery when officers found close to 200
illegal traps meant to harm large mammals near Kota Tinggi. The traps were made of 15cm
square plywood with a sharp nail 20cm long and 1.5cm wide protruding from the center. The
spikes were concealed in the ground and covered by long grass along a 1000meter stretch
near a private estate 20km from Kota Tinggi. The traps can cause serious injuries to wild
elephants and a merciless way to ward off wild animals.

So Ladang Sawitku Sdn. Bhd has done the same case as above which is set a trap to
keep the wild animals such as elephants away from its plantation. The traps that Ladang
Sawitku Sdn. Bhd also uses the same traps and it could cause severe injuries to large
mammals. It is illegal to use traps to kill wild animals. Under the Wildlife Conservation Act
2010, a maximum punishment of RM 20,000 or one year in prison or both.

Application

According to our understanding, Ladang Sawitku Sdn. Bhd. has assigned employees
to set up booby traps to keep elephants and other wild animals away from its plantation. The
traps were built from 15cm square plywood with a 20cm long and 1.5cm wide pointed nail
projecting from the center. When trodden on, the traps might cause severe injury to large
mammals.
 It must be understood that the elephants are not at fault for causing damage to the
plantation. This is because when clearing jungle land for agriculture, we have encroached
into their territory. There is a serious need to consider land use planning. The authority
should assess what wildlife is present in the area and then see what can be done to reduce the
beast-human conflict.

The State Wildlife Protection and National Parks Department can take action against
Ladang Sawitku Sdn. Bhd. under the Wildlife Conservation Act of 2010 since the estate has
sent its employees to set up booby traps to keep elephants and other wild animals away from
its plantation.

Conclusion

To sum up, State Wildlife Protection and National Parks Department can take action
against Ladang Sawitku Sdn. Bhd. under Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 since the estate has
sent its workers to lay booby traps to keep wild animals such as elephants away from its
plantation.
ISSUE 2: WATER POLUUTION

Issue of the case

The issue of the case is either DOE can take action against Ladang Sawitku Sdn. Bhd.
under section 31 of the Environmental Quality Act 1974 since the oil palm mill did not have
a treatment plant because it is too expensive to build hence, had been discharging a large
amount of effluents into the river and had deteriorated the water quality.

Rule/ Principle of Law

Based on our understanding towards the case given, action under environmental law
that can be identified in the case of water pollutions under Section 31 of Environmental
Quality Act 1974. Section 31 of the EQA gives power to the Director General of the DOE to
require owner or occupier of prescribed premises to install control equipment for example
treatment plant in the rubber and crude palm oil processing sectors in order to meet the
emission or effluent discharge standard.

To support our study, in the subordinate court in Klang, YTY Industries Sdn. Bhd.
Was charged in July 1998. The Sessions Court fined the company RM10, 000 after it has
admitted discharging effluent more than the permitted level under the Environmental Quality
(Sewerage & Industrial Effluents) Regulations 1979.The offence was committed at Kg.
Kebun Baru, Klang on the 15 June, 1998.

So Ladang Sawitku Sdn. Bhd has done the same case as above which is discharging a
large amount of effluents into the river and had deteriorated the water quality because they do
not have treatment plant. The Environmental Quality Act of 1974, which forbids the pollution
of inland water like as rivers, canals or lakes, as well as Malaysia water, without a license, is
the foundation of the contemporary system of water pollution regulation. Under the S31 of
Environmental Quality Act 1974, a maximum fine of RM10,000.

Application

According to our understanding, the oil palm mill has been releasing much quantities
of effluents into the river, so degrading the water quality. Because it is too costly to build, the
mill did not have a treatment plant.

Under the section 31 of the EQA gives power to the Director General of the DOE to
require or of occupier of prescribed premises to install control equipment for example
treatment plant in the rubber and crude palm oil processing sectors in order to meet the
emission or effluent discharge standard.

The DOE can take action against Ladang Sawitku Sdn. Bhd. under section 31 of the
Environmental Quality Act 1974. Due to the high cost of constructing a treatment facility, the
oil palm mill has been releasing a large quantity of effluents into the river, so degrading the
water quality.

Conclusion

To sum up, under section 31 of the Environmental Quality Act of 1974, the DOE may
take action against Ladang Sawitku Sdn. Bhd. Due to the high cost of installing a treatment
facility, the oil palm mill has been releasing a substantial amount of effluents into the river,
thereby degrading the water quality.
ISSUE 3: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Issue of the case

The issue of this case is whether doe can take action against Mr Tan under section
34(A)(6) of the EQA 1974. Due to a good demand for crude palm oil, Mr Tan has had bought
another 500 hectares of secondary jungle to expand his oil palm business. He instructed his
company to clear the 500 hectares of land immediately for the purpose of oil palm seedlings.
He also told his workers that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not necessary
because the director of the Department of Environment was his close friend.

Rule/ Principle of Law

Based on our understanding of the case given, due to good demand for crude palm oil,
Mr Tan has bought another 500 hectares of the secondary jungle to expand his oil palm
business. Mr Tan also told his workers that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not
necessary because the director of the Department of Environment was his close friend.

First, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) can be defined as an information-

gathering exercise carried out by the developer and other bodies which enables a local
planning authority to understand the environmental effects of development before deciding
whether to grant planning permission for the project proposal. According to S34A of the
EQA 1974, the Minister may by order prescribe any types of development (prescribed
activities) that require EIA if it has a significant impact on the environment. Some of the
activities are described in the EIA regulation. Some of the examples of activities that needed
EIA are agriculture programs covering an area of 500 hectares, quarries, and also the airport
construction.

To support our study, we can refer to the case in Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Alam
Sekitar v Kajing Tubek (1997) 3 MLJ 23 (Bakun Dam Case) the Court of Appeal was faced
with the issue of whether an action in administrative law may be commenced by the
inhabitants of the area proposed activity had failed to follow proper procedure such as to
make the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report accessible to the public. It was held
that the respondents lacked locus standi to institute the action.

Section 34 (A)(6) imposes a duty on any person intending to carry out any of the
prescribed activities to submit an EIA report before any approval for the carrying out of such
activities is granted. Unless and until such report is submitted and approved by the Director-
General, no person would be allowed to carry out such activity.

Application

According to our understanding of the presented case, Mr. Tan purchased 500
hectares of secondary jungle to expand his rubber business. As a result, he ordered an instant
clearing of the forest and ask his workers to immediately plants the rubber seedlings. Mr Tan
company told workers that no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was required to
continue their agriculture development.

It is clearly defined that the goal of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is to

provide information to decision makers about issues that may arise because of decisions
relating to a new project, program, plan, or policy. Environmental Impact Assessment must
result in decision-making based on inputted information, including potentially significant
factors, and it must benefit both the proponent and the citizens. Furthermore, Environmental
Impact Assessment is a technique that presents a systematic technical assessment of the
environmental impacts that the project is likely to cause and explains the significance of
predicted environmental impacts.

As far as we concern, according to S34(A)(6) of Environmental Quality Act (EQA)

provides that "any person intending to carry out a prescribed activity should not carry out
such activity until the required report has been submitted to and approved by the Director
General of DOE." Therefore, it is not acceptable by the law if the workers proceed to Mr
Tan’s instruction not to provide EIA report for their 500 hectares agriculture development. If
not, the company will be sued due to their illegal action of not providing EIA for their project
proposal. This is because, EIA is an essential step to control the environmental pollution as
clearing 500 hectares of jungles can cause global warming which will contribute to the
climate crisis.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, Mr Tan should have EIA to do an immediate clearing of the land for the
plantation of oil palm seedlings. This is based on S34(A)(6) where one should not carry out
such prescribed activities such as agriculture programs covering an area of 500 hectares, until
the report has been submitted to the DG of DOE and approved. Therefore, according to the
valid reasons, the company should provide EIA and get approval from DOE before the
workers can starts clearing and planting the oil palm seedlings.

REFERENCES

Hanifah, N. A. (2019). Understanding Environmental Law in Malaysia. In N. A. Hanifah,

Understanding Environmental Law in Malaysia (Pp. 56, 72, 86, 103). Selangor: Malaha
Press.

KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN ALAM SEKITAR & ANOR V KAJING TUBEK & ORS

AND OTHER APPEALS. | UNEP Law and Environment Assistance Platform. (2022).

Unep.org.

https://leap.unep.org/countries/my/national-case-law/ketua-pengarah-jabatan-alam-

sekitaranor-v-kajing-tubek-ors-and