Wednesday, 20 May 2020
Saturday, 16 May 2020
“There Are Remedies For MA63 Breaches But No Political Will To Seek Redress”
DATO SRI FONG JOO CHONG ON MA63
Comments on the interview of former Sarawak Attorney General DatoSri Fong Joo Chong by Professor James Chin posted on YouTube on 14 May 2020.
The Malaysia Agreement 1963 (Ma63) was an international made by the United Kingdom and Malaya with 3 colonies Singapore, North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak. Since 2012 the issue of MA63 validity has been raised and created a widespread discussion on the legitimacy of Malaysia.
In the interview with Dato Sri JC Fong, he was asked if MA63 was a valid agreement and he argued that it was. However, the reasons he offered were not convincing when examined under international law rules on treaty-making.
Some major points on the process of forming Malaysia were inaccurate or not fully put in the context of the historic facts and international law. Unfortunately, although the Chagos Islands case was raised it was not dealt with in a substantive manner other than dismissing it as that the “circumstances were different”. Here are the counter-arguments to his comments.
1. The British plan to create Malaysia was agreed to by the UK and Malayan governments following secret talks in 1960/1961 before they announced it on 27 May 1961. This “plan” was sealed in the secret "Agreement to Set up the federation of Malaysia" signed on 31 July 1962, agreeing to transfer Sarawak & North Borneo and Singapore sovereignty to Malaya,. Article 3 of the Agreement stated that “In addition, the two Governments will, by an unpublished exchange of letters, agree:-
a. that, if for any reason it appeared desirable, the new Federation of Malaysia could, by agreement between the two Governments, be brought into being on a date earlier than 31st August 1963;”
The only conclusion one could draw from the Agreement is that the Borneo people affected were not consulted from the beginning at all as their destiny was arbitrarily decided beforehand by the UK and Malayan governments! The formation process and Malaysia Agreement 1963 was just a formality to legitimize Malaysia which often glossed over the fact that all this was done in gross violation of international law and human rights of the Borneo people.
2. The idea to create Malaysia was part of the British strategic plan mooted before WW2 & seriously proposed as the Malayan Union in mid-1942 to consolidate Malaya with Singapore and Brunei, North Borneo, and Sarawak as one political entity to defend its S. E. Asia colonial territories and resources especially Brunei oil. The need to do so was emphasised by the speed of the Japanese invasion and takeover of its colonies territories in 1941.
3. The Malayan Union plan was rejected by the then independent Sarawak Gov't in 1942 but the British went ahead by forming the Malayan Union in 1946 and at the same time annexed Sarawak & North Borneo a British Crown Colonies. The UK in annexing Sarawak promised that it would not be included in the Malayan Union and would restore its independence. However, the British plan to re-take their lost territories after the war came under pressure with the worldwide rise of independence struggles and the 1960 UN Declaration calling for the decolonization of colonies. The UK went about creating friendly “independent” states to defend its former colonial territories and resources as it did by relying on a pro-British Malayan government to take over the Borneo colonies instead of granting them independence.
4. The process of creating Malaysia was fatally flawed as the British twice denied (and opposed) the people a “pre-Malaysia” referendum so that they could exercise their free and genuine will on the choice of federation with Malaya or independence in compliance with UN resolutions and international law.
5. The Cobbold Commission and April 1963 local council elections in Sarawak and UN assessment were not a referendum on "Malaysia" representing the free expression of the people’s will as should have been done in a free vote under independent supervision. These events were argued as popular support legitimising Malaysia. However, it is noted that the UK held independence referendums in its other colonies before and after 1962. It even agreed to the Scottish referendum in 2019 and held its own BREXIT referendum in 2017.
6. The making of Malaysia was accomplished under emergency law conditions before and after the Brunei anti-Malaysia Uprising on 8 December 1962, in which the people were put under intense and sustained pressure to consider Malaysia as the only choice instead of independence. Such undue pressure and coercive conditions questioned the validity of MA63 since it was clear that the process was not completed in peaceful and congenial conditions where the people could freely decide their destiny according to international law.
7. Before the release of the Cobbold Commission Report on its "fact-finding mission" on 1 Aug 1962 the British and Malayan governments had already agreed and publicly declared it was “good” for the Borneo people in 1960 and they signed a secret "Agreement to Set up the Federation of Malaysia" on 31 July 1962.
8. The Malaysia Agreement 1963 signed on 9 July 1963 was invalid as it has done in breach of international law rules on treaty-making. MA63 was negotiated by the British colonial representatives in secrecy and not by elected representatives of Sarawak or North Borneo which were still colonies not sovereign states with the capacity to make treaties. An administering colonial power cannot make a binding international agreement with its colony under its full control a legal principle affirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Chagos Case 25 Feb 2019.
a. The circumstances of the Chagos were similar to that of MA63. In both cases, the colonies were under the full control of the UK when the respective agreements were signed. The ICJ found that Mauritius had no executive or legislative powers to make the agreement with the UK to separate the Chagos Island from its territory. The UK has sought to justify its action by claiming consent from a Mauritian delegation at a Lancaster House meeting in 1965, but this seems to have been extracted by an ultimatum (“either you give up Chagos or we will not give you independence”) and in any event that delegation- had no legal or practical mandate to surrender Mauritian territory. Thus the ICJ held the agreement made by the UK and Mauritius was not a binding international agreement.
b. In the case of MA63, Sarawak and North Borneo were not sovereign or even self-governing but were under full British colonial control when their sovereignty was signed away under MA63.
c. The agreement was made under emergency law conditions. In Sarawak, there was a climate of fear as the British whipped up the fear of the Indonesian invasion and the communist threat in the lead up to the Malaysia Agreement, 6 months after the Brunei Uprising against Malaysia. This amounted to duress, undue pressure, and coercion on the people to accept the British plan without the alternative choice of independence.
d. On top of this, the British government knowingly made an illegal agreement as it was legally advised that neither N Borneo nor Sarawak were sovereign or even self-governing and therefore could not be a party to MA63. But they decided to include the 2 colonies as parties for “presentational purposes” and also importantly they realised that if the colonies were not parties it would confirm opposition to the Malaysia Plan and MA63 on the ground that it was “a neo-colonial operation” done without the concurrence of the people.
9. THE MANILA ACCORD HAD THE EFFECT OF INVALIDATING MA63.
The MA63 was superseded by Manila Accord signed by Malaya with Indonesia and the Philippines on 31 July 1963, 22 days after MA63 was signed. The Accord stipulated 2 pre-Malaysia conditions: that the people’s wishes on federation must be independently assessed by the UN and that the Philippine's claim on Sabah must be resolved.
a. The Manila Accord challenged (overturned) the authoritativeness of MA63 & Cobbold Commission and meaning MA63 had failed to comply with the UN Resolution 1514, and preceded MA63 and invalidated it! The UN Resolution required that the people should be allowed to freely to determine their destiny without outside interference which Malayan involvement was.
b. By agreeing to implement the Accord, Malaya & UK acknowledged that MA63 did not comply with the UN decolonization requirements. If MA63 was validly done the Malayan and UK government would have rejected the Accord conditions. (The Malayan Prime Minister said he had used the Manila talks to deflect Indonesian & Philippines opposition to Malaysia. If so he was clearly doing it in bad faith).
10. THE UN ASSESSMENT WAS UNSOUND & BIASED
a. The UN assessment was flawed by collusion between the UK & UN to “handpick” the UN team to assure the outcome favoured the UK plan.
b. The UK and Malaya changed the date to declare Malaysia Day to 16 Sept 1963 before the UN assessment was completed thus assuming that they knew the outcome and treated the assessment as irrelevant.
c. The UN Sec General endorsed M'sia on 14/16 Sept 1963 even before the UN legal opinion was given on 19 Sept 1963.
d. The UN legal opinion failed to examine the validity of MA63 when it was apparent on its face that 3 colonies were party to the treaty.
11. CONCLUSION: Malaysia was not created with a legal basis under international law and is therefore no more than a de facto union imposed on the Sarawak and Sabah people. The UK government still has a moral and political responsibility to seek the proper and full decolonization of the 2 colonies with the United Nations if Malaya does not voluntarily decolonize Sarawak and Sabah.
Comments on the interview of former Sarawak Attorney General DatoSri Fong Joo Chong by Professor James Chin posted on YouTube on 14 May 2020.
The Malaysia Agreement 1963 (Ma63) was an international made by the United Kingdom and Malaya with 3 colonies Singapore, North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak. Since 2012 the issue of MA63 validity has been raised and created a widespread discussion on the legitimacy of Malaysia.
In the interview with Dato Sri JC Fong, he was asked if MA63 was a valid agreement and he argued that it was. However, the reasons he offered were not convincing when examined under international law rules on treaty-making.
Some major points on the process of forming Malaysia were inaccurate or not fully put in the context of the historic facts and international law. Unfortunately, although the Chagos Islands case was raised it was not dealt with in a substantive manner other than dismissing it as that the “circumstances were different”. Here are the counter-arguments to his comments.
1. The British plan to create Malaysia was agreed to by the UK and Malayan governments following secret talks in 1960/1961 before they announced it on 27 May 1961. This “plan” was sealed in the secret "Agreement to Set up the federation of Malaysia" signed on 31 July 1962, agreeing to transfer Sarawak & North Borneo and Singapore sovereignty to Malaya,. Article 3 of the Agreement stated that “In addition, the two Governments will, by an unpublished exchange of letters, agree:-
a. that, if for any reason it appeared desirable, the new Federation of Malaysia could, by agreement between the two Governments, be brought into being on a date earlier than 31st August 1963;”
The only conclusion one could draw from the Agreement is that the Borneo people affected were not consulted from the beginning at all as their destiny was arbitrarily decided beforehand by the UK and Malayan governments! The formation process and Malaysia Agreement 1963 was just a formality to legitimize Malaysia which often glossed over the fact that all this was done in gross violation of international law and human rights of the Borneo people.
2. The idea to create Malaysia was part of the British strategic plan mooted before WW2 & seriously proposed as the Malayan Union in mid-1942 to consolidate Malaya with Singapore and Brunei, North Borneo, and Sarawak as one political entity to defend its S. E. Asia colonial territories and resources especially Brunei oil. The need to do so was emphasised by the speed of the Japanese invasion and takeover of its colonies territories in 1941.
3. The Malayan Union plan was rejected by the then independent Sarawak Gov't in 1942 but the British went ahead by forming the Malayan Union in 1946 and at the same time annexed Sarawak & North Borneo a British Crown Colonies. The UK in annexing Sarawak promised that it would not be included in the Malayan Union and would restore its independence. However, the British plan to re-take their lost territories after the war came under pressure with the worldwide rise of independence struggles and the 1960 UN Declaration calling for the decolonization of colonies. The UK went about creating friendly “independent” states to defend its former colonial territories and resources as it did by relying on a pro-British Malayan government to take over the Borneo colonies instead of granting them independence.
4. The process of creating Malaysia was fatally flawed as the British twice denied (and opposed) the people a “pre-Malaysia” referendum so that they could exercise their free and genuine will on the choice of federation with Malaya or independence in compliance with UN resolutions and international law.
5. The Cobbold Commission and April 1963 local council elections in Sarawak and UN assessment were not a referendum on "Malaysia" representing the free expression of the people’s will as should have been done in a free vote under independent supervision. These events were argued as popular support legitimising Malaysia. However, it is noted that the UK held independence referendums in its other colonies before and after 1962. It even agreed to the Scottish referendum in 2019 and held its own BREXIT referendum in 2017.
6. The making of Malaysia was accomplished under emergency law conditions before and after the Brunei anti-Malaysia Uprising on 8 December 1962, in which the people were put under intense and sustained pressure to consider Malaysia as the only choice instead of independence. Such undue pressure and coercive conditions questioned the validity of MA63 since it was clear that the process was not completed in peaceful and congenial conditions where the people could freely decide their destiny according to international law.
7. Before the release of the Cobbold Commission Report on its "fact-finding mission" on 1 Aug 1962 the British and Malayan governments had already agreed and publicly declared it was “good” for the Borneo people in 1960 and they signed a secret "Agreement to Set up the Federation of Malaysia" on 31 July 1962.
8. The Malaysia Agreement 1963 signed on 9 July 1963 was invalid as it has done in breach of international law rules on treaty-making. MA63 was negotiated by the British colonial representatives in secrecy and not by elected representatives of Sarawak or North Borneo which were still colonies not sovereign states with the capacity to make treaties. An administering colonial power cannot make a binding international agreement with its colony under its full control a legal principle affirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Chagos Case 25 Feb 2019.
a. The circumstances of the Chagos were similar to that of MA63. In both cases, the colonies were under the full control of the UK when the respective agreements were signed. The ICJ found that Mauritius had no executive or legislative powers to make the agreement with the UK to separate the Chagos Island from its territory. The UK has sought to justify its action by claiming consent from a Mauritian delegation at a Lancaster House meeting in 1965, but this seems to have been extracted by an ultimatum (“either you give up Chagos or we will not give you independence”) and in any event that delegation- had no legal or practical mandate to surrender Mauritian territory. Thus the ICJ held the agreement made by the UK and Mauritius was not a binding international agreement.
b. In the case of MA63, Sarawak and North Borneo were not sovereign or even self-governing but were under full British colonial control when their sovereignty was signed away under MA63.
c. The agreement was made under emergency law conditions. In Sarawak, there was a climate of fear as the British whipped up the fear of the Indonesian invasion and the communist threat in the lead up to the Malaysia Agreement, 6 months after the Brunei Uprising against Malaysia. This amounted to duress, undue pressure, and coercion on the people to accept the British plan without the alternative choice of independence.
d. On top of this, the British government knowingly made an illegal agreement as it was legally advised that neither N Borneo nor Sarawak were sovereign or even self-governing and therefore could not be a party to MA63. But they decided to include the 2 colonies as parties for “presentational purposes” and also importantly they realised that if the colonies were not parties it would confirm opposition to the Malaysia Plan and MA63 on the ground that it was “a neo-colonial operation” done without the concurrence of the people.
9. THE MANILA ACCORD HAD THE EFFECT OF INVALIDATING MA63.
The MA63 was superseded by Manila Accord signed by Malaya with Indonesia and the Philippines on 31 July 1963, 22 days after MA63 was signed. The Accord stipulated 2 pre-Malaysia conditions: that the people’s wishes on federation must be independently assessed by the UN and that the Philippine's claim on Sabah must be resolved.
a. The Manila Accord challenged (overturned) the authoritativeness of MA63 & Cobbold Commission and meaning MA63 had failed to comply with the UN Resolution 1514, and preceded MA63 and invalidated it! The UN Resolution required that the people should be allowed to freely to determine their destiny without outside interference which Malayan involvement was.
b. By agreeing to implement the Accord, Malaya & UK acknowledged that MA63 did not comply with the UN decolonization requirements. If MA63 was validly done the Malayan and UK government would have rejected the Accord conditions. (The Malayan Prime Minister said he had used the Manila talks to deflect Indonesian & Philippines opposition to Malaysia. If so he was clearly doing it in bad faith).
10. THE UN ASSESSMENT WAS UNSOUND & BIASED
a. The UN assessment was flawed by collusion between the UK & UN to “handpick” the UN team to assure the outcome favoured the UK plan.
b. The UK and Malaya changed the date to declare Malaysia Day to 16 Sept 1963 before the UN assessment was completed thus assuming that they knew the outcome and treated the assessment as irrelevant.
c. The UN Sec General endorsed M'sia on 14/16 Sept 1963 even before the UN legal opinion was given on 19 Sept 1963.
d. The UN legal opinion failed to examine the validity of MA63 when it was apparent on its face that 3 colonies were party to the treaty.
11. CONCLUSION: Malaysia was not created with a legal basis under international law and is therefore no more than a de facto union imposed on the Sarawak and Sabah people. The UK government still has a moral and political responsibility to seek the proper and full decolonization of the 2 colonies with the United Nations if Malaya does not voluntarily decolonize Sarawak and Sabah.
中砂 筹建化验室 未雨绸缪 张庆信：翼有能力者解囊
中砂 筹建化验室 未雨绸缪 张庆信：翼有能力者解囊
（民都鲁15日讯）“策群力，挺前线”抗疫基金所筹募的第三波前线物资今日运抵民都鲁，此次随皇家空军军机运载而来的物资还包括令人振奋的实时聚合酶链反应（n-PCR）检测机器，除了可用于检测2019冠状病毒病以及其他40种病毒！有关化验室所需的器材今日共同由华总总秘书拿督黄益隆、华总名誉会长拿督贝建安、中华二校董事长许道雄少校、主要赞助商兼民都鲁区国会议员拿督斯里张庆信代表港业集团（Harbour-link Group Berhad）号东拿督杨阜顺、拿督斯里谢惠福代表翁荣华以及民都鲁国会议员人民服务中心代表江玘宸移交予民都鲁医院。
张庆信披露，随着化验室如火如荼设立，日后民省内所采集的冠病病毒化验检测样本有望在数小时内获得准确结果，加快了医疗团队为确诊病患提供有效治疗的速度，解决此前民都鲁的化验样本需要送往诗巫医院检验才能得知最终结果而有所延误的问题。
“若（n-PCR）检测机器可以让民市等待化验报告的人数归零，抗疫团队得以争取更短的时间来鉴定潜在感染源、锁定追踪确诊患者的亲属和紧密接触人士等等的高风险群，继而进行适当的隔离措施，竭止各社区内的病菌扩散。”
张庆信有感民都鲁在地医疗设备与检测仪器必须顺应人口增长而有所提升，其服务中心近日启动了“安民鼎埠”化验室建设基金，筹款目标为135万令吉，希望社会上有能力之士热烈响应、慷慨解囊。
“所筹募的款项将用来购置各种病菌疫苗的化验器材，建立一所民都鲁人民专属的化验室，有关化验室预计在2周后可开始启用。”
文章来源 ： 星洲日报 2020-05-15
Mycomments：
建冠病化验室到底是谁的职责？ 砂拉越政府的责任到底在那里？ 为什么 这么重要 化验室 都没有设立一个 ？ 张庆信应该向所谓的联邦政府紧急申请建立冠病化验室或向砂政府要求建立这关系人民生死的基本措施。不是这样数十年如一日一直向人民开刀。税收不是拿来建设方便 人民的基本措施，拿给谁用呢？ 这种人民代表推动这种税收后还要人民负责种种公共开销文化是时候停止了吧。 当 我一看到 人民代表这种做法不负责的行为，我非常的愤怒 。 这分明是代表无能在 所谓的国会或砂议会诉求以获得拨款改善人民的基本措施。我希望砂民拒绝再傻下去，被政客耍的团团转。如果，我们让政客们都这么玩的话，我们为什么要付税呢？
Tuesday, 12 May 2020
Why give up S’wak oil and gas rights in settlement with Petronas, PSB asks GPS
theborneopost.com
KUCHING: Parti Sarawak Bersatu (PSB) is demanding an answer from the
Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) government for allegedly sacrificing
Sarawak’s oil and gas rights with its settlement with Petroliam Nasional
Berhad (Petronas) recently on the State Sales Tax (SST).
Pointing out that his party was shocked by the sacrifice of Sarawak’s ownership of its oil and gas, Dato Sri Wong Soon Koh said he had called for an explanation from the Chief Minister on accepting the validity of the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA) and acknowledging that Petronas had full authority over the state’s oil and gas.
In reply to his call two days ago, the PSB president said the state’s de facto law minister, Datuk Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali, had alluded to “Sarawak rights protected by the Federal Constitution, The Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the Recommendations under Inter Governmental Committee Report 1962.”
He added that Sharifah Hasidah, who is Assistant Minister in the Chief Minister’s Department (Law, State-Federal Relationship and Project Monitoring), also said: “The GPS State Government remains firmly committed to defend the sovereign rights of Sarawak to the oil and gas resources of the State.”
In this respect, Wong said: “This then begs the question why the GPS government capitulated and gave up our State rights to challenge the validity of the Petroleum Development Act 1974?”
Wong said this question was expressly and specifically raised by him in a press statement which Sharifah Hasidah purported to reply to.
“Why did the GPS government and the Chief Minister avoid answering my question? Did not GPS continuously shout that the PDA 1974 was invalid as far as Sarawak is concerned? Were there not cries of sovereignty over our petroleum rights which the PDA 1974 was supposed to have eroded illegally?” Wong asked.
“Yet, in this so-called ‘settlement’ with Petronas for which Petronas paid a fraction of what is rightly due to Sarawak, why did GPS find it necessary to sacrifice Sarawak rights to challenge the PDA 1974?”
Wong, who is the former second finance minister, said Sarawakians were entitled to an answer from the GPS government.
The state government had Petronas had issued a joint statement last Friday to announced that they had reached the settlement in which the national oil corporation had agreed to pay the RM2 billion SST owed to the state.
It said they were dropping their legal suits against each other and in addition, Sarawak had agreed to reduce the SST rate imposed on the corporation from the current five per cent in phases.
The statement was signed by Sharifah Hasidah and Petronas chairman Datuk Ahmad Nizam Salleh.
To ensure that the commercial solution was implemented smoothly, the Federal Minister of Works and Minister of Finance has been tasked to chair a working committee overseeing the matter, said the statement.
Why give up S’wak oil and gas rights in settlement with Petronas, PSB asks GPS
Parti Sarawak Bersatu logo
Pointing out that his party was shocked by the sacrifice of Sarawak’s ownership of its oil and gas, Dato Sri Wong Soon Koh said he had called for an explanation from the Chief Minister on accepting the validity of the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA) and acknowledging that Petronas had full authority over the state’s oil and gas.
In reply to his call two days ago, the PSB president said the state’s de facto law minister, Datuk Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali, had alluded to “Sarawak rights protected by the Federal Constitution, The Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the Recommendations under Inter Governmental Committee Report 1962.”
He added that Sharifah Hasidah, who is Assistant Minister in the Chief Minister’s Department (Law, State-Federal Relationship and Project Monitoring), also said: “The GPS State Government remains firmly committed to defend the sovereign rights of Sarawak to the oil and gas resources of the State.”
In this respect, Wong said: “This then begs the question why the GPS government capitulated and gave up our State rights to challenge the validity of the Petroleum Development Act 1974?”
Wong said this question was expressly and specifically raised by him in a press statement which Sharifah Hasidah purported to reply to.
“Why did the GPS government and the Chief Minister avoid answering my question? Did not GPS continuously shout that the PDA 1974 was invalid as far as Sarawak is concerned? Were there not cries of sovereignty over our petroleum rights which the PDA 1974 was supposed to have eroded illegally?” Wong asked.
“Yet, in this so-called ‘settlement’ with Petronas for which Petronas paid a fraction of what is rightly due to Sarawak, why did GPS find it necessary to sacrifice Sarawak rights to challenge the PDA 1974?”
Wong, who is the former second finance minister, said Sarawakians were entitled to an answer from the GPS government.
The state government had Petronas had issued a joint statement last Friday to announced that they had reached the settlement in which the national oil corporation had agreed to pay the RM2 billion SST owed to the state.
It said they were dropping their legal suits against each other and in addition, Sarawak had agreed to reduce the SST rate imposed on the corporation from the current five per cent in phases.
The statement was signed by Sharifah Hasidah and Petronas chairman Datuk Ahmad Nizam Salleh.
To ensure that the commercial solution was implemented smoothly, the Federal Minister of Works and Minister of Finance has been tasked to chair a working committee overseeing the matter, said the statement.
Willie: Sarawak doesn't lose any rights to Putrajaya following agreement with Petronas
theborneopost.com
KUCHING: Sarawak loses none of her rights to the federal government
following an agreement with Petronas on the management of the state’s
oil and gas assets as well as the sales tax on petroleum products, says
Plantation and Commodities Deputy Minister Willie Mongin.
Willie, who is Puncak Borneo MP, said the RM2 billion payment to the state was a commercial settlement outside the court and as such, the relevant points of law were not the prime concern as much as expediency.
He said because expediency was the main determinant, court room arguments over points of law from the Petroleum Development Act (PDA 1974), the Oil Mining Ordinance 1958 (OMO 1958) and the States Sales Tax Ordinance 1998 (SST 1998) did not take place and consequently, there was no court judgment on which party won or lost.
“What it means in simple language is the three legislation commonly thought to be crucial in Sarawak’s efforts to enforce her rights remain status quo and by extension, Sarawak rights as enshrined in those legislation too remained undiminished.
“One of those rights that remain untouched is Petronas cannot operate in Sarawak until they applied for and is given a license by Petros to operate in Sarawak’s territory,” he said in a statement in respond to DAP’s Dr Ting Tiong Choon and Sarawak People’s Aspiration Party (Aspirasi) president Lina Soo’s statement against the Sarawak government.
Willie reminded Ting and Soo that Sarawak’s land mass of 124,450 square kilometres is just 80,947 square kilometres smaller than the entire Peninsular Malaysia, but is lagging far behind in terms of all aspects.
He said the rural population of Sarawak cannot be sufficiently empowered to lift themselves up from poverty unless and until they have good infrastructural access to the urban areas.
He believed that for that to happen, a huge amount of money is needed by the Sarawak government.
“Empty bravado and political rhetoric most definitely will not change the fate of the rural people or the urban poor.
“A protracted legal battle in courts will only serve to prolong the sufferings of the rural people who are still in dire need of connectivity and basic utilities,” he said.
He said as a Sarawakian MP, he would never allow Sarawak’s rights to be eroded and he would work for the mutual benefit of all Malaysians under the Perikatan Nasional federal government.
Willie commended Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Abang Johari Tun Openg and his team for their wisdom shown in accepting the out-of-court settlement of RM2 billion.
“I sincerely hope that they will have the same wisdom as they negotiate the payment mechanism so that Sarawak can have the funds soonest possible,” he said.
Both Ting and Soo’s statements were issued in reaction to the Sarawak government’s decision to accept a commercial settlement of their claim for SST on petroleum products transactions instead of continuing to pursue their claims in court were published by The Borneo Post on May 10.
The Sarawak government and Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) had on May 8, announced that they had reached an agreement on the State Sales Tax (SST) with the national oil corporation agreeing to pay RM2 billion owed to the state.
Ting was quoted on May 10 as having said that the agreement by Sarawak GPS government to accept Petronas’ RM2 billion as the full payment for the five 2019 bill for the SST is the “biggest traitorous decision since PDA 1974”.
Assistant Minister for Law, State-Federal Relations and Project Monitoring Assistant Minister Datuk Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali when clarifying on the matter yesterday said the settlement itself was reached after Petronas failed in its application to have proceedings to enforce payment of the SST as assessed for year 2019, deferred or suspended until the disposal of its Appeal, scheduled to be on June 17, 2020.
She said that Petronas has agreed to pay in full the SST due for Year 2019 and to withdraw its Appeal, must be deemed to be its unequivocal acknowledgment or admission of the State’s constitutional right to impose SST on petroleum products and its acceptance of the High Court Judgment which declared the State has such constitutional authority to impose SST.
She noted that by withdrawing the Appeal, Petronas agreed to be bound by the decisions of the High Court wherein the High Court decided that Sarawak’s rights are protected by the Federal Constitution, The Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the Recommendations under Inter Governmental Committee Report 1962.
It must be made clear that by withdrawing their appeal, Petronas recognises our Constitutional right and they are bounds by the Laws of Sarawak and the decisions of the Court which, prior to this, Petronas refused to acknowledge our rights under the Constitution, MA63 and IGC Report, she added.
My comments:
What does this mean? Why does the GPS government accept this illegal act PDA74 to be applied to Sarawak? What sovereign rights do we have when a Malayan oil company has so much power over the oil and gas resources in Sarawak when they take 95% of the profit? What is MA63 when the Malayan government breaks every agreement of it? Why does the GPS government endure this inequality in the share of profit? Why does the GPS accept invalid MA63? Why does the GPS government refuse to have MA63 to be settled in the International Court of Justice?
Willie: Sarawak doesn't lose any rights to Putrajaya following agreement with Petronas
Willie Mongin
Willie, who is Puncak Borneo MP, said the RM2 billion payment to the state was a commercial settlement outside the court and as such, the relevant points of law were not the prime concern as much as expediency.
He said because expediency was the main determinant, court room arguments over points of law from the Petroleum Development Act (PDA 1974), the Oil Mining Ordinance 1958 (OMO 1958) and the States Sales Tax Ordinance 1998 (SST 1998) did not take place and consequently, there was no court judgment on which party won or lost.
“What it means in simple language is the three legislation commonly thought to be crucial in Sarawak’s efforts to enforce her rights remain status quo and by extension, Sarawak rights as enshrined in those legislation too remained undiminished.
“One of those rights that remain untouched is Petronas cannot operate in Sarawak until they applied for and is given a license by Petros to operate in Sarawak’s territory,” he said in a statement in respond to DAP’s Dr Ting Tiong Choon and Sarawak People’s Aspiration Party (Aspirasi) president Lina Soo’s statement against the Sarawak government.
Willie reminded Ting and Soo that Sarawak’s land mass of 124,450 square kilometres is just 80,947 square kilometres smaller than the entire Peninsular Malaysia, but is lagging far behind in terms of all aspects.
He said the rural population of Sarawak cannot be sufficiently empowered to lift themselves up from poverty unless and until they have good infrastructural access to the urban areas.
He believed that for that to happen, a huge amount of money is needed by the Sarawak government.
“Empty bravado and political rhetoric most definitely will not change the fate of the rural people or the urban poor.
“A protracted legal battle in courts will only serve to prolong the sufferings of the rural people who are still in dire need of connectivity and basic utilities,” he said.
He said as a Sarawakian MP, he would never allow Sarawak’s rights to be eroded and he would work for the mutual benefit of all Malaysians under the Perikatan Nasional federal government.
Willie commended Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Abang Johari Tun Openg and his team for their wisdom shown in accepting the out-of-court settlement of RM2 billion.
“I sincerely hope that they will have the same wisdom as they negotiate the payment mechanism so that Sarawak can have the funds soonest possible,” he said.
Both Ting and Soo’s statements were issued in reaction to the Sarawak government’s decision to accept a commercial settlement of their claim for SST on petroleum products transactions instead of continuing to pursue their claims in court were published by The Borneo Post on May 10.
The Sarawak government and Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) had on May 8, announced that they had reached an agreement on the State Sales Tax (SST) with the national oil corporation agreeing to pay RM2 billion owed to the state.
Ting was quoted on May 10 as having said that the agreement by Sarawak GPS government to accept Petronas’ RM2 billion as the full payment for the five 2019 bill for the SST is the “biggest traitorous decision since PDA 1974”.
Assistant Minister for Law, State-Federal Relations and Project Monitoring Assistant Minister Datuk Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali when clarifying on the matter yesterday said the settlement itself was reached after Petronas failed in its application to have proceedings to enforce payment of the SST as assessed for year 2019, deferred or suspended until the disposal of its Appeal, scheduled to be on June 17, 2020.
She said that Petronas has agreed to pay in full the SST due for Year 2019 and to withdraw its Appeal, must be deemed to be its unequivocal acknowledgment or admission of the State’s constitutional right to impose SST on petroleum products and its acceptance of the High Court Judgment which declared the State has such constitutional authority to impose SST.
She noted that by withdrawing the Appeal, Petronas agreed to be bound by the decisions of the High Court wherein the High Court decided that Sarawak’s rights are protected by the Federal Constitution, The Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the Recommendations under Inter Governmental Committee Report 1962.
It must be made clear that by withdrawing their appeal, Petronas recognises our Constitutional right and they are bounds by the Laws of Sarawak and the decisions of the Court which, prior to this, Petronas refused to acknowledge our rights under the Constitution, MA63 and IGC Report, she added.
My comments:
What does this mean? Why does the GPS government accept this illegal act PDA74 to be applied to Sarawak? What sovereign rights do we have when a Malayan oil company has so much power over the oil and gas resources in Sarawak when they take 95% of the profit? What is MA63 when the Malayan government breaks every agreement of it? Why does the GPS government endure this inequality in the share of profit? Why does the GPS accept invalid MA63? Why does the GPS government refuse to have MA63 to be settled in the International Court of Justice?
Sunday, 10 May 2020
Petronas now recognises Sarawak’s right to impose SST, says Sharifah Hasidah
theborneopost.com
KUCHING: Sarawak government has agreed to a settlement with Petroliam
Nasional Berhad (Petronas) on the State Sales Tax (SST) not because the
state has a weak case and cannot take its chance in the appellate
courts, said the state’s de facto law minister Datuk Sharifah Hasidah
Sayeed Aman Ghazali.
Responding to questions raised by Parti Sarawak Bersatu president Dato Sri Wong Soon Koh on the settlement, she said it was reached after Petronas failed in its application to have proceedings to defer or suspend payment of the SST for 2019 until the disposal of its Appeal on June 17, 2020.
“That Petronas has agreed to pay in full the SST due for Year 2019 and to withdraw its Appeal, must be deemed to be its unequivocal acknowledgement or admission of the State’s constitutional right to impose SST on petroleum products and its acceptance of the High Court Judgment which declared the state has such constitutional authority to impose SST,” said Sharifah Hasidah, who is the Assistant Minister of Law, State-Federal Relations and Project Monitoring.
“By withdrawing the Appeal, Petronas agreed to be bound by the decisions of the High Court wherein the High Court decided that Sarawak rights are protected by the Federal Constitution, The Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the Recommendations under Inter Governmental Committee Report 1962,” she said in a statement.
Hasidah stressed that by withdrawing their appeal, Petronas recognised Sarawak’s Constitutional rights, including under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the Inter-Governmental Committee Report, and that they are bound by the state’s laws and the decisions of the Court which, prior to this, the corporation refused to acknowledge.
Sharifah Hasidah added that under the terms of the settlement, Petronas would pay in full to the Sarawak government SST due for the year 2019.
She said this amounted to around RM2 billion, excluding statutory late payment penalties and interest accruing on the amount assessed from the date of Notice of Assessment till full settlement.
“The SST for year 2020 remains at five per cent of the sale value of the petroleum products. Only Notices of Assessment for the Q1 2020 have been issued. There is no agreement yet for the reduction of SST for the current Year 2020,” she explained.
She said Wong’s claim that “the anticipated O & G tax for two years (for 2019 and 2020” totalled RM 6.775 billion” was settled for a vastly reduced sum of RM2 billion was completely untrue and misleading.
“The RM2 billion paid by Petronas is only SST for Year 2019 and excluded SST paid by other oil companies like Shell, Murphy Oil, Pertamina, and others operating in the state. The amount of SST to be collected in 2020 have yet to be ascertained.
“Whether there would be a reduction in rate of SST in future years would depend on the outcome of the “commercial settlement” to be reached, to be reached with the resumption of negotiations between the state government, Petros and Petronas,” she said.
She further pointed out that such a commercial settlement would entail greater state participation in the upstream operation (both offshore and onshore), as well as investments in downstream business and industries, so as to enable the state to have a more equitable share of the returns from oil and gas produced within the boundaries of Sarawak.
“The GPS state government remains firmly committed to defend the sovereign rights of Sarawak to the oil and gas resources of the State. It has amply demonstrated this by taking Petronas to court over the SST issues,” said Sharifah Hasidah.
“The state government will resolve all other issues through the ongoing negotiations with the federal government and Petronas. The outcome of these negotiations will ultimately bring in more investments in the oil and gas sectors to sustain the growth of related industries, and enable the state, through Petros, to enhance its involvement in the upstream and downstream areas of the petroleum industry,” she said.
My comments:
How can the GPS Sarawak government protect the sovereign rights of Sarawak to the oil and gas resources of Sarawak when it has recognised PDA74 when MA63 is invalid from the very beginning. I believe that Abang Johari and his team know very well that MA63 is a fraud from the very beginning with all the classified documents declassified now. It is open to all to view. I wonder why Abang Johari can accept PDA 74 which was not consented in the DUN Sarawak. I wonder why Abang Johari sways and wobbles all the time. I wonder what huge benefits he and his team have reaped to bow to Petronas' decision to settle the amount at RM 2 million. The amount should be much higher based on the calculations which the GPS government never bothers to go to the very end to demand for the accounts. When every account is blurred, every opportunity for corruption and collusion among them is so created.
Hence, I strongly believe that we should flush out the GPS Sarawak government for good to save Sarawak from being plundered, exploited, oppressed, suppressed, robbed and bullied all the time
Petronas now recognises Sarawak’s right to impose SST, says Sharifah Hasidah
By
withdrawing their appeal, Petronas recognises Sarawak’s Constitutional
rights and that they are bound by the state’s laws and decisions of the
Court which, prior to this, the corporation refused to acknowledge.
Responding to questions raised by Parti Sarawak Bersatu president Dato Sri Wong Soon Koh on the settlement, she said it was reached after Petronas failed in its application to have proceedings to defer or suspend payment of the SST for 2019 until the disposal of its Appeal on June 17, 2020.
“That Petronas has agreed to pay in full the SST due for Year 2019 and to withdraw its Appeal, must be deemed to be its unequivocal acknowledgement or admission of the State’s constitutional right to impose SST on petroleum products and its acceptance of the High Court Judgment which declared the state has such constitutional authority to impose SST,” said Sharifah Hasidah, who is the Assistant Minister of Law, State-Federal Relations and Project Monitoring.
“By withdrawing the Appeal, Petronas agreed to be bound by the decisions of the High Court wherein the High Court decided that Sarawak rights are protected by the Federal Constitution, The Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the Recommendations under Inter Governmental Committee Report 1962,” she said in a statement.
Hasidah stressed that by withdrawing their appeal, Petronas recognised Sarawak’s Constitutional rights, including under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the Inter-Governmental Committee Report, and that they are bound by the state’s laws and the decisions of the Court which, prior to this, the corporation refused to acknowledge.
Sharifah Hasidah added that under the terms of the settlement, Petronas would pay in full to the Sarawak government SST due for the year 2019.
She said this amounted to around RM2 billion, excluding statutory late payment penalties and interest accruing on the amount assessed from the date of Notice of Assessment till full settlement.
“The SST for year 2020 remains at five per cent of the sale value of the petroleum products. Only Notices of Assessment for the Q1 2020 have been issued. There is no agreement yet for the reduction of SST for the current Year 2020,” she explained.
She said Wong’s claim that “the anticipated O & G tax for two years (for 2019 and 2020” totalled RM 6.775 billion” was settled for a vastly reduced sum of RM2 billion was completely untrue and misleading.
“The RM2 billion paid by Petronas is only SST for Year 2019 and excluded SST paid by other oil companies like Shell, Murphy Oil, Pertamina, and others operating in the state. The amount of SST to be collected in 2020 have yet to be ascertained.
“Whether there would be a reduction in rate of SST in future years would depend on the outcome of the “commercial settlement” to be reached, to be reached with the resumption of negotiations between the state government, Petros and Petronas,” she said.
She further pointed out that such a commercial settlement would entail greater state participation in the upstream operation (both offshore and onshore), as well as investments in downstream business and industries, so as to enable the state to have a more equitable share of the returns from oil and gas produced within the boundaries of Sarawak.
“The GPS state government remains firmly committed to defend the sovereign rights of Sarawak to the oil and gas resources of the State. It has amply demonstrated this by taking Petronas to court over the SST issues,” said Sharifah Hasidah.
“The state government will resolve all other issues through the ongoing negotiations with the federal government and Petronas. The outcome of these negotiations will ultimately bring in more investments in the oil and gas sectors to sustain the growth of related industries, and enable the state, through Petros, to enhance its involvement in the upstream and downstream areas of the petroleum industry,” she said.
My comments:
How can the GPS Sarawak government protect the sovereign rights of Sarawak to the oil and gas resources of Sarawak when it has recognised PDA74 when MA63 is invalid from the very beginning. I believe that Abang Johari and his team know very well that MA63 is a fraud from the very beginning with all the classified documents declassified now. It is open to all to view. I wonder why Abang Johari can accept PDA 74 which was not consented in the DUN Sarawak. I wonder why Abang Johari sways and wobbles all the time. I wonder what huge benefits he and his team have reaped to bow to Petronas' decision to settle the amount at RM 2 million. The amount should be much higher based on the calculations which the GPS government never bothers to go to the very end to demand for the accounts. When every account is blurred, every opportunity for corruption and collusion among them is so created.
Hence, I strongly believe that we should flush out the GPS Sarawak government for good to save Sarawak from being plundered, exploited, oppressed, suppressed, robbed and bullied all the time
Thursday, 7 May 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)