|
Malaysia is among the five countries in the Asean group that was elected to
the 40-member executive council of the International Maritime Organization.
The IMO assembly which commenced its meeting 21 November 2005 in London
elected 40 members for three categories of membership composition for the
2006-2007 executive council.
For category (a) 10 States with the largest interest in providing
international shipping services were elected that included China, Greece,
Italy, Panama, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, United
States, Norway and Japan.
The 10 states with the largest interest in international seaborne trade that
were elected were Argentina, Germany, Bangladesh, India, Brazil, Spain,
Sweden, The Netherlands, Canada and France.
Malaysia, which was led to the meeting by Transport Minister, Datuk Seri
Chan Kong Choy, was elected under Category (c) along with 20 countries which
have special interests in maritime transport or navigation, and whose
election to the Council will ensure the representation of all major
geographic areas of the world.
The category included Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines
which unlike Malaysia had served the previous executive Council.
The Council is the executive organ of IMO and is responsible, under the
Assembly, for supervising the work of the Organization.
The Council performs all the functions of the Assembly, except that of
making recommendations to governments on maritime safety and pollution
prevention.
The 24th session of the IMO Assembly is being held at its London
Headquarters from 21 November - 2 December 2005
Meanwhile speaking at the opening of the 24th Assembly, IMO
Secretary-General Efthimios E. Mitropoulos told delegates the Voluntary IMO
Member State Audit Scheme, set to be adopted during the Assembly, which will
provide an excellent opportunity to improve standards for the greater good
of all, providing a key tool in the battle against sub-standard shipping.
The Audit Scheme will allow members of the Organization to place their own
implementation record under the scrutiny of qualified, independent auditors,
with a view to identifying where any gaps or weaknesses might be occurring
so that, whatever remedial action might be appropriate, can be decided upon. |
