Police fail to halt trade in wildlife
Police fail to halt trade in wildlife
Rendi A. Witular, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
Enforcement of laws protecting rare species in Indonesia is still
a bridge too far, as the authorities are often afraid to take the
violators to court, or even just question them.
This was illustrated on Friday, when the city police, along
with the wildlife police from the Ministry of Forestry, carried
out a raid on a house belonging to Andi Saibah.
In the house, located on Jl. Iskandarsyah II no.2, South
Jakarta, the police found a stuffed two-meter-long Sumatran
tiger.
The police, however, did not question Andi nor process her
case any further as, they stated, she had not been aware that
possessing the stuffed animal was illegal according to Article
No. 5/1990 of the law on natural resources and ecosystem
conservation, which carries a maximum penalty of one year's
imprisonment or a Rp 50 million fine.
"We must have some understanding here. Andi honestly admitted
that she was ignorant of the law and, furthermore, was willing to
hand over the tiger to the police.
"What more can we expect? There's also another thing: She
could put us in an "awkward" position," said Adj. Comr. Heru
Santoso, team leader of the raid, who refused to elaborate on
what he meant by "awkward".
Meanwhile, Andi, who is a widow of a senior government
official, refused to comment on the matter.
The raid was based on an investigation carried out by
nongovernmental organization Animal Conservation for Life (KSBK),
led by Hardi Baktiantoro.
According to Hardi, the owner of the tiger had sought a buyer
prepared to pay Rp 2.5 million (US$266) for it.
Hardi was disappointed with the raid as the police had not
processed the matter any further.
"Well, the police were too scared to proceed with the case.
This is a bad precedent in the enforcement of law protecting
wildlife and rare species. However, we will continue with other
investigations, even if the police do not support our campaign.
The stuffed tiger was about five years old, so the violator
should have been charged under Article No.5/1990," said Hardi.
Subsequently, the tiger was not confiscated but taken to the
city police headquarters as it had by then been donated to them.