New Law Says Public Must Be Consulted Before Forests Are Cleared, Pahang And Three Other States Said No To That Part

Pahang became the fourth state to strip two public accountability provisions from its forestry law — and together with Kelantan, Negeri Sembilan and Perak, those four states now control nearly 70 percent of the peninsula’s permanent forest reserves with no obligation to consult the public or replace cleared land.

Fernando Fong

In Brief

Four states controlling nearly 70 per cent of Peninsular Malaysia's Permanent Forest Reserves rejected public inquiry requirements before degazetting forests.
Critics warn that two-thirds of peninsular forest reserves can now be removed without public hearings or any legal obligation to replace cleared land.
Environmental groups argue conservation decisions affecting majority of Malaysia's forests should carry legal accountability, not rely solely on internal state policy.

Subscribe to our FREE Newsletter, or Telegram and WhatsApp channels for the latest stories and updates.

Pahang passed its state enactment adopting the National Forestry Act (Amendment) 2022 — but struck two provisions before it did.

Section 11 requires a public inquiry before any land is excised from a Permanent Forest Reserve, while Section 12 requires that replacement land of equal or greater size be identified and gazetted whenever forest reserve land is removed.

Both were left out, and Pahang is the fourth state to do so, following Kelantan, Negeri Sembilan and Perak — and together, the four states control nearly 70 per cent of all gazetted Permanent Forest Reserves in Peninsular Malaysia.

Together, the four states hold the majority of Peninsular Malaysia’s 4.8 million hectares of gazetted Permanent Forest Reserves.

In practical terms: the majority of the peninsula’s remaining forest reserves can now be degazetted by their respective state governments without a public hearing, and without any obligation to replace the land removed.

Pahang’s Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Wan Rosdy Wan Ismail defended the decision during the second reading speech, arguing that states which have successfully maintained their forest cover — Pahang holds over 44 per cent of its land mass as permanent forest reserves — should not face rigid federal restrictions.

The federal guidelines, he said, sometimes feel like an attempt to “grip” or strongly restrict states that have already proven their conservation record.

Award-winning Malaysian environmental journalist Law Yao Hua criticised the systemic lack of transparency and loss of “forest democracy” after four states rejected public inquiries before removing permanent forest reserves.

He noted that two-thirds of all permanent forest reserves in Peninsular Malaysia are now legally shut out from public scrutiny, while expressing disappointment over mainstream media’s failure to adequately report on these critical amendments.

A Missed Opportunity, They Said

At the state level, the response has been more measured — but no less pointed: Regional Environmental Awareness Cameron Highlands (REACH) stopped short of characterising the decision as deliberate, instead framing the exclusion as a missed opportunity and calling on the state government to reconsider.

Public participation should not be viewed as an obstacle to development, REACH said in a statement.

It provides an opportunity for the State Government, relevant agencies, local communities, environmental organisations and other stakeholders to understand the potential environmental and social implications before decisions concerning forest reserves are made.

The group added that the requirement for replacement land would ensure any reduction in Pahang’s forest reserve area is “properly compensated” and that the overall integrity of the state’s forest estate is maintained.

Cameron Highlands, where REACH is based, sits within that estate — and has faced decades of pressure from agricultural encroachment and development activity.

REACH said incorporating the two provisions would not undermine state authority.

The group argued it would strengthen public confidence in Pahang’s forest management and position the state as a leader in sustainable forest governance.

Strong forest management is not only about protecting forests; it is also about ensuring transparency, accountability and public confidence in every decision affecting our forests.

REACH is not the only group to have raised the alarm.

The Association for the Protection of the Natural Heritage of Malaysia (Peka) previously condemned the broader pattern of state exclusions, calling it an “outrageous step backwards” that promotes secrecy over transparent governance.

Public Accountability vs. Internal Policy

The picture across Peninsular Malaysia is uneven; Perlis, Melaka and the Federal Territories have fully adopted both provisions, while Selangor mandates public inquiry before excision but does not require replacement land.

Johor, Kedah and Terengganu have passed the 2022 Act’s higher criminal penalties for illegal logging but have yet to finalise their position on the public inquiry and replacement land clauses.

The 2022 federal amendment was designed to apply uniformly across Malaysia.

Forestry, however, falls under state jurisdiction, meaning each state legislature must pass its own enactment for federal provisions to take local effect.

The result is a patchwork of protections, where the strength of a forest’s legal safeguards depends on which state it sits in.

Pahang sits at the centre of that debate.

The state protects 1.589 million hectares — 44.13 per cent of its entire landmass — with over half classified as water catchments or wildlife sanctuaries where logging is strictly prohibited.

Wan Rosdy has pointed to this record in defence of the exclusions, noting that the state already enforces an internal policy requiring replacement land to be secured before any degazettement is signed off.

He has separately requested that federal Ecological Fiscal Transfer allocations be disbursed as direct cash rather than project grants to better compensate Pahang for maintaining its forests.

The friction, environmental groups argue, is not over whether these states conserve — it is over whether conservation decisions affecting the majority of Peninsular Malaysia’s forest reserves should rest on internal state policy alone, or carry the legal weight of public accountability.