Oleh/By		:	DATO' SERI DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD 
Tempat/Venue 	: 	RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL 
Tarikh/Date 	: 	13/06/92 
Tajuk/Title  	: 	THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON 
			ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT 




 Mr. Chairman,
    I  would  like  to  thank  our host, President Fernando
Collor de Mello, and the Government of Brazil for the hospi-
tality extended to us at this conference.
2.   Malaysia has come to this  conference  because  we  are
concerned  about  the environment.  We are here to seek ways
to achieve sustainable development and to establish a  solid
foundation  for worldwide cooperation on environment and de-
velopment.  We appreciate that if anything is to be done to-
wards sustainable development then all countries  everywhere
must  work together.  The boundaries of nations do not limit
the pollution caused by them.    Neighbours,  both  far  and
near, are affected by the pollutants produced by any nation.
3.   Presently,  Malaysia  is well able to cope with its own
pollution.  In a country about the size of Britain, we  have
a  population  only  one third as big.   We are a developing
country with a per capita income one-tenth of the  developed
countries.   Our capacity for wasteful consumption is there-
fore very limited -- roughly one thirtieth that of  the  de-
veloped countries.
4.   On  the  other  hand, our capacity to deal with our own
waste is far in excess of our needs.  Our land is almost  60
percent covered with self-regenerating tropical rain forest,
with  an  additional 15 percent covered by tree plantations.
Any carbon dioxide we produce we can absorb.
5.   If pollution can be contained within the boundaries  of
a country, then Malaysia has nothing to worry.  But Malaysia
has  to  deal  with cross-border pollution.   Most developed
countries have already destroyed their capacity to deal with
their own waste.  Not only have they clear-felled their for-
ests but their production of waste is  so  great  that  they
must rely on the poor countries to dispose of this waste.
6.   Malaysia is prepared to do its bit.  But can nothing be
done  to  reduce  the  waste?   Is it right that the poor be
forced to clean up the mess created by  the  rich?    Should
there  not  be  some sharing of the task, the responsibility
and the cost for cleaning up?   These are the  questions  we
would like answered at this conference.
7.   For  the  right answers there must be a modicum of sin-
cerity and honesty on the part of everyone.  We talk  a  lot
now  about  a  new  world order, human rights, democracy and
justice.  Let there be evidence of all these when we try  to
identify   the   causes  and  to  resolve  the  problems  of
sustainable development.
8.   We recognise that man in his pursuit of development  is
the  cause  of the pollution and degradation of the environ-
ment.  We cannot stop development altogether but we  can  at
least minimise the pollution caused by it.
9.   If  we  are  to achieve sustainable development then we
must all be prepared to make the necessary adjustments.  But
if we begin by saying that our life-style is sacred and  not
for  negotiation then it would be meaningless to talk of de-
velopment and the environment.
10.  It is claimed that one of the causes  of  environmental
degradation is the size of the population of some developing
countries.  We dispute this assumption.
11.  However we note that rich developed communities tend to
have  low  birth  rates.    If  we want to reduce population
growth then we must help poor communities to  become  devel-
oped.   Yet we hear from the rich, proposals which would re-
sult in stopping the development of poor countries in  order
to  reduce  pollution.   You may be able to reduce pollution
but you will end  up  with  massive  overpopulation  in  the
poorest developing countries.
12.  We know that the 25 percent of the world population who
are  rich  consume  85  percent of its wealth and produce 90
percent of its waste.  Mathematically speaking, if the  rich
reduce  their  wasteful consumption by 25 percent, worldwide
pollution will be reduced by 22.5 percent.  But if the  poor
75  percent  reduce  consumption  totally and disappear from
this earth altogether the reduction in pollution  will  only
be by 10 percent.
13.  It  is  what the rich do that counts, not what the poor
do, however much they do it.  That is why it  is  imperative
that  the  rich  change their life-styles.   A change in the
lifestyles of the poor only, apart  from  being  unfair,  is
quite  unproductive environment-wise.   But the rich talk of
the sovereignty of the consumers and their  right  to  their
life-styles.    The  rich  will not accept a progressive and
meaningful cutback in their emission of carbon  dioxide  and
other greenhouse gases because it will be a cost to them and
retard  their  progress. Yet they expect the poor peoples of
the developing countries to stifle even their minute  growth
as if it will cost them nothing.
Excellencies,
14.  One  of  the major issues we are expected to resolve is
Global Warming.  Here one of the major industrialized  coun-
tries  could not agree to cut-back on its emission of carbon
dioxide at the rate generally accepted by others.  Since  it
is the major source of industrial pollution its decision has
rendered the agreement inequitable and meaningless.
15.  Malaysia has for several years been cutting back on the
emission  of carbon dioxide.  We impose a tax of 300 percent
on cars with large capacity engines.   Even small  cars  are
heavily  taxed.   But in most developed countries the tax on
automobiles and petrol is minimal thus  accounting  for  the
high car/population ratio.  Surely a reduction in the number
of private cars and better public transport would not change
the  life-style too much.  Yet it will do wonders for Global
Warming.
16.  The other issue before us is bio-diversity.   The  poor
countries have been told to preserve their forests and other
genetic  resource on the off-chance that at some future date
something is discovered which might prove useful  to  human-
ity.   This is the same as telling these poor countries that
they must continue to be  poor  because  their  forests  and
other  resource  are  more precious than themselves.   Still
they are not rejecting the value of bio-diversity, at  least
not totally.
17.  Denying  them  their own resources will impoverish them
and retard their development.  Surely if something  is  dis-
covered  in  their  forests, they should be entitled to some
returns.
18.  But now we are told that the rich  will  not  agree  to
compensate  the  poor  for their sacrifices.  The rich argue
that the diversity of genes stored and  safeguarded  by  the
poor  are of no value until the rich, through their superior
intelligence, release the potential within.  It is an intel-
lectual property and must be copy-righted and protected.
19.  Developing countries which met in Kuala Lumpur in April
have agreed on a plan to reafforest the whole world.  A Fund
for this Greening of the World was proposed.  But the  North
are resisting this proposal.  Perhaps it is considered to be
yet  another  attempt by the developing countries to squeeze
the rich using the environmental issue.  The rich North  can
only  see the chiselling ways of the South and is determined
that they will not be squeezed.   Yet the  North  demands  a
forest convention.
20.  Obviously  the  North wants to have a direct say in the
management of forests in the poor South at next to  no  cost
to  themselves.    The pittance they offer is much less than
the loss of earnings by the poor countries  and  yet  it  is
made out as a generous concession.
21.  We  will accept the Global Environment Facility, and we
will accept that it be administered by  the  OECD  dominated
World  Bank.    But can we not have a little say; can we not
have more transparency in the administration of  this  Fund?
Surely,  this  does  not  amount  to the South squeezing the
North.
22.  The poor is not asking for  charity.    When  the  rich
chopped  down their own forests, built their poison-belching
factories and scoured the world  for  cheap  resources,  the
poor  said nothing.  Indeed they paid for the development of
the rich.  Now the rich claim a right to regulate the devel-
opment of the poor countries.  And yet any  suggestion  that
the  rich compensate the poor adequately is regarded as out-
rageous.  As colonies we were exploited.  Now as independent
nations we are to be equally exploited.
Excellencies,
23.  Malaysia was disillusioned about these inequities  long
before we reached Rio.  In a world that has been won for de-
mocracy, we find powerful nations laying down terms even for
participating in a democratic process.  We find scant regard
for  the  principles  of fairness and equity.   We find that
even the Rio Declaration and Agenda  21  have  been  watered
down upon insistence from the powerful and the rich.
24.  Notwithstanding  all these, we still have high expecta-
tions of this conference and we would consider this  Confer-
ence  on  the Environment and Development a success if there
emerged a better understanding of the enormity of the  prob-
lems  we face and the need for us to cooperate on an equita-
ble basis.  Malaysia will do what can reasonably be expected
of it for the environment.