Traffic Southeast Asia director Kanitha Krishnasamy said many failed to realise that the problem not only stemmed from traders and hunters but also those buying the animals.
Kanitha said although those who purchase endangered species or parts and products without a valid permit could be arrested for illegal possession, it remained difficult to track down all the people involved along the entire trade chain, largely due to the anonymity that the internet provides.
“There should be repercussions against consumers buying (wildlife) products illegally,” she told FMT.
Offenders convicted of importing and exporting totally protected species, such as the Malayan tiger and pangolin, without a valid permit face a fine of up to RM1 million and a jail term of not more than 15 years.
Those found guilty of trading protected species online, such as the Malayan tapir and siamang, without a valid permit face a fine of not less than RM50,000 and imprisonment of up to 15 years.
Kanitha said although those who purchased endangered species or parts and products without a valid permit could be arrested for illegal possession, it remained difficult to track down these people by virtue of how the internet functioned.
“There are millions of people online. Investigations to identify these individuals are very resource intensive, time consuming and complicated,” she said.
Based on official records, the wildlife and national parks department (Perhilitan) dealt with 443 cases involving the illicit trade of wildlife on online platforms from 2020 to date.
Justice for Wildlife Malaysia project director Nor Arlina Amirah Ahmad Ghani also said stymying demand could prevent the poaching and trafficking of wildlife from happening.
Arlina, who engages with prosecutors of wildlife-related cases to improve investigation methods and prosecutorial paperwork, said the authorities were currently taking a hard line against wildlife criminals but noted that it could not remain so forever.
“At the end of the day, you don’t want to keep on punishing people. You want people to stop buying wildlife and stop the crime from happening in the first place.
“Hopefully in five to 10 years, we get the bigger picture of why the demand (for wildlife) is there,” she said.
Arlina said as the authorities and NGOs continued to collect information and data on the illicit trade of wildlife online, they could better determine what measures were needed to deter crimes and whether efforts should be shifted to reducing demand instead.
Enforcement and prosecution
Arlina said Malaysia lacked a “baseline” for wildlife crime cases in court, which made it difficult to gauge whether the intervention efforts by the authorities were effective.
She said her NGO has been working on a database to keep track of the wildlife crime cases that made it to court, as well as the prosecution work and sentencing involved.
“Once we get the baseline, then we have something for judges, prosecutors and everyone to use in order to gauge our intervention,” she said.
She said during the engagements between the judiciary and Justice for Wildlife Malaysia, the judges stressed that wildlife crimes were a priority but they could only decide on cases presented before them.
Arlina also said on-the-ground enforcement must complement prosecution work in order to strengthen the cases presented in court and ensure perpetrators were charged and received the appropriate punishment.