30 October 2013
Singapore covered in haze (20 June 2013), compared to a clear day (13 April 2012). © AFP
Last summer, hazardous levels of air pollution affected the health and lives of many people, the economy (e.g. disruptions of air traffic due to reduced visibility, decreased tourism and business activities) and the environment of multiple states.[1] In both Singapore and Malaysia, record breaking levels of atmospheric pollution were measured.[2] Large parts of Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia were covered in smog, and the smoke haze[3] even spread to Thailand and Brunei. (more…)
7 March 2013
At the Conference of the Parties of the of the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), eight states (Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and China) were identified as key to the trade in ivory and were threatened with trade sanctions if they do not address failures in protection against poaching, and failures in seizing illegal ivory trade.
Six of these states are states which most ivory passes through (Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Malaysia, Philippines and Vietnam), the other two are the states were most ivory is bought (China and Thailand).
The news of threat of trade sanctions coincides with the publication of a report that details the increase in levels of poaching. The report concludes that illicit ivory trade activity and the weight of ivory behind this trade has more than doubled since 2007, and is over three times greater than it was in 1998.
Source: The Guardian | Two-thirds of forest elephants killed by ivory poachers in past decade
Source: UNEP, CITES, IUCN, TRAFFIC | Elephants in the Dust - The African Elephant Crisis | A Rapid Response Assessment
Source: The Miami Herald | Ivory trade nations face threat of sanctions
1 September 2011
The High Court of Australia has ruled that the Malaysian refugee swap is unlawful, dealing a huge blow to the Gillard government for which the handling of border protection has become an important political issue. Under the deal, Australia was to send 800 asylum-seekers to Malaysia, in return accepting 4000 refugees from Malaysia over four years. However, in a six-to-one decision, the court found the minister could not validly process asylum-seekers in a third country unless that country was bound under law to provide effective protection for them while their refugee status was determined. That protection must be enshrined either in domestic law or in the form of international instruments, such as the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which Malaysia has not signed.
Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au
