Aping panda diplomacy?

Primate problem: According to WWF-Malaysia, the orangutan is critically endangered, which means the species face a very high risk of extinction in the wild if its population decline continues. — MAZIDI GHANI/WWF-Malaysia

MORE than 10 years ago, a proposal was submitted to the government on China’s offer to loan a pair of pandas to Malaysia. It was part of Beijing’s panda diplomacy and also coincided with 40 years of diplomatic relations with Malaysia then.

It was accepted almost immediately by Putrajaya. Malaysians were excited at the prospect of seeing the giant pandas in their own backyard, in Zoo Negara. There was a long queue to see Xing Xing and Liang Liang in the RM25mil airconditioned Giant Panda Conservation Centre specially built for them. Malaysia’s weather is too hot for pandas to handle.

Prior to the pair’s arrival in Malaysia, the then Natural Resources and Environment Ministry sent its officers several times to China to learn to care for the pandas. An official recalled it was an expensive affair overall to bring in the pandas. Malaysia had to bear all costs because that was the agreement with Beijing.

“We loan, you take care and pay for everything,” – that was the message for the 10-year loan. That included, among others, transportation and salary for Chinese trainers sent to Malaysia to train local ones.

The panda pair has given birth to three cubs over several years. It is understood that the cubs’ delivery and care cost too was borne by Malaysia. The cubs have been returned to China while Xing Xing and Liang Liang are still at Zoo Negara. Their loan tenure is up and Malaysia is requesting an extension of their stay.

Recently, Plantations and Commodities Minister Datuk Seri Johari Abdul Ghani announced that Malaysia aims to offer orang-utans as gifts to palm oil trading countries as a way of fostering foreign relations and as a show of concern towards biodiversity conservation.

He said it would portray Malaysia as a sustainable oil palm producer and raise the awareness of our global partners.

“Many of the world’s trading partners are increasingly concerned by the impact of agricultural commodities on the climate. Malaysia can prove to the global community that we always maintain a balance between meeting the needs of food security while protecting the environment.

“We intend to practice ‘orangutan diplomacy’ like China, which has succeeded in creating various ‘panda diplomacy’ opportunities worldwide.

“It is a diplomatic strategy that would be an advantage to trading partners and foreign relations, especially in major importing countries such as the European Union, India and China,” Johari was reported as saying on May 8.

The idea was dismissed swiftly. WWF-Malaysia issued a statement stating that the orangutan has been listed as critically endangered, which means the species faces a very high risk of extinction in the wild if its population decline continues. It says in Sarawak, forests with orangutans are protected, with almost 2,000 individuals making these areas their home. In Sabah, a stable population comprising more than 70% of the remaining 11,000 orangutans is found in forest reserves and protected areas that cover half of Sabah’s total land mass.

WWF-Malaysia instead advocates for in-situ conservation and urges trading partners and the international community to support Malaysia in conserving orangutans.

“The best way to showcase Malaysia’s commitment to orangutan conservation is to conserve any remaining natural forests that are habitats for them,” it said.

Sarawak Tourism, Creative and Performing Arts Minister Datuk Seri Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah also disagrees with Johari’s proposal, stressing that these primates are better off in their natural habitat.

Do we know what we are getting into by making such a suggestion? Was this even discussed by the Cabinet?

If this is really a public relations exercise to show the world Malaysia does indeed take care of its environment, then it could just backfire.

“If you take the orangutan out and send it to other countries, people would ask why is Malaysia doing this? Get ready for their environmentalists to question our actions. What is the narrative here?” asked one official.

“We are supposed to keep them in their natural habitat. Why are we taking them out from their environment when we should be protecting the environment,” he added.

Another important question is who will absorb the cost if Malaysia decides to go ahead with this “diplomatic strategy”? And even if a country accepts the gift, do we have the experts to provide to the host? Can the recipient country offer a similar habitat for the orangutans to live in?

So many questions remain unanswered. The list of conditions would be endless.

Furthermore, giant pandas are exclusive to China, so by the same token are orangutans only ours?

If such a proposal has indeed been brought before the Cabinet, the government must reassess its feasibility.

Any ideas involving the country from a minister, irrespective of his background, corporate or otherwise, must be carefully thought through and dissected for all possible consequences. Some ideas take time to implement, even if they are brilliant.

This “orangutan diplomacy” proposal must go back to the drawing board. Is it a wise idea when Malaysia should be seen as protecting our wildlife but instead we do the opposite by removing a threatened species from its habitat?