theborneopost.com

Soo suggests Sarawak government increase sales tax on petroleum products to 20 per cent

Lina Soo

KUCHING: The Sarawak government should consider increasing the sales tax on all petroleum products to 20 per cent to finance its development programmes.
State Reform Party Sarawak (STAR) president Lina Soo said this in response to the statement by the Sarawak Consultative Committee on MA63.
She, however, supported the Sarawak government’s resolve to carry through with the five per cent Sarawak sales tax on petroleum products and the proposal to the federal government to lower the 38 per cent Petroleum Income Tax.
     “In view of the federal government now attempting to cut off its allocations with inadequate funding for our schools, federal roads and bridges, the answer lies in increasing the Sarawak petroleum sales tax to 20 per cent,” she suggested.
“There is no reason why Sarawak as landowner is getting much less revenue from its oil and gas compared to the federal government.”
STAR also supports the four non-negotiable rights – immigration, state legislation vis-à-vis federal laws, Sarawak’s territorial sovereignty (border and sea), and resources.
        As landowner, Soo maintains that Sarawak is entitled to all property rights and economic rights of its resources, including oil and gas, over its land and territory.
However, Soo regretted that the declaration of the Sarawak Consultative Committee on MA63, though excellent in principle, fell short on specifics.
      “The committee has failed to convince, on how the Sarawak government will take the necessary constitutional steps to safeguard Sarawak’s territorial integrity and claim ownership of its oil and gas for future generations,” she stressed.
Since the discord with Petronas over the state’s oil and gas rights emerged, STAR has consistently urged that the Sarawak government pass a law in the State Legislative Assembly (DUN) to repudiate the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) and Territorial Sea Act (TSA).
     “This constitutional provision must be formalised and gazetted by DUN to lock in our sovereignty over our natural resources for our future generations. If as what CM (Chief Minister of) Sarawak has said that he believes silence means consent, our silence on both Acts may be construed as consent and acquiescence. This would be fatal to our future generations,” she warned.
On Petronas’ position in Sarawak, Soo says that the Sarawak Oil Mining Ordinance (OMO) is very clear and that all oil mining companies exploring, prospecting and mining oil and gas in Sarawak must apply for the necessary permits and pay all dues.
      “It is as clear as daylight that no oil mining company can operate without observing our Sarawak laws, as no oil mining company can be bigger than the State of Sarawak,” she stressed.
Soo reiterated her call to enforce the regulation that non-Sarawakians must produce their passports upon entry in the state and departure.
    “This is the clearest signal of our immigration autonomy,” she said.
On the issue that Sarawak land placed under the Federal Land Commission be returned to Sarawak, Soo fully supports and looks forward to the return of the huge parcel of land at Matang allocated to the federal government which is now a grass-growing eyesore.
      Also on the return of assets under federal control back to Sarawak, Soo proposed that the Sarawak government take over the federal-owned Bintulu Port as it had done for Bakun Dam.
   “After all, Bintulu Port is used to ship out Sarawak’s oil and gas, which is a Sarawak resource.”
     Soo urged Sarawakians to support the government’s stand as laid out by Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Abang Johari Tun Openg, a wish coming true if indeed the federal government accepts and respects Sarawak’s rights.
  “In fact, Sarawak rights rest with the Sarawak government and no one else, as it is the duty of the Sarawak government to formulate, legislate and enforce the law on Sarawak rights in the interests of the people and for future generations, which has been blatantly ignored for all of 56 years.”
    Doubts and concerns may be cast upon the effectiveness of such proposal taken so far as to warrant its legitimacy as it has taken both federal and state governments 56 years to acknowledge the failure to comply with MA63; and as without the participation of the principal signatory, the British Government, this may mean the MA63 has fallen into disuse and is no longer binding. After all, MA63 is an international treaty and bound by the International Law on Treaties, concludes Soo.

What do you think of this story?

• Great (70%)