Pages

Powered By Blogger

Tuesday, 6 June 2023

Razaleigh exposes Dr M wasteful economic management

RAZALEIGH EXPOSES MAHATHIR'S WASTEFUL ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT

Comment Peter Terence D'Cruz 

Tun M wasted more than RM529 billion of Petronas money since 1970, saving Mirzan & Mokhzani's losses - Tengku Razaleigh

Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah yesterday claimed that the former 4th and 7th PM, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohammad had caused the country's petroleum giant, Petronas, to lose more than RM500 billion since 1979.

The shocking revelation was shared by FB user Peter Terence D'Cruz yesterday afternoon.

March 21, 2023

The founding chairman of Petronas and its first CEO, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah said that the federal government in Putrajaya under Mahathir has been treating the oil and gas corporation as a cash cow, especially in bailing out government-linked companies in financial trouble.

Petronas provided the money to build some of former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed's most grandiose projects, including the KL Twin Towers, the Putra Jaya administrative capital and to bring Formula One racing in Malaysia.

Petronas was used to get Malaysia out of an RM31.5 billion forex scandal perpetrated by Mahathir in the early 1990s in which the financier George Soros outfoxed Bank Negara, making billions and earning Mahathir's eternal antagonism. It paid off US$800 million in losses from Mahathir's ill-fated Perwaja Steel project. In 1998, it bailed out Mahathir's eldest son Mirzan, purchasing his Shipping Consortium for RM226 million and assuming debts of more than RM324 million. It also awarded in 2012 a RM700 contract to a firm in which Mahathir's other son Mokhzani was a vice president.

Tengku Razaleigh, or Ku Li, said that since its inception in 1974, Petronas has paid out RM529 billion to the government in the form of dividends, taxes, petroleum revenue and export duties.

He also said the government's reliance on Petronas to rescue financially floundering government-linked companies (GLCs) had been going on since 1985.
Ku Li was the Minister of Finance from 1974 to 1984.

In 1985, Petronas bailed out Bank Bumiputra with a Rm2.5 billion infusion. In 1991, Petronas shored up the banks' finances again when it pumped in an additional RM1 billion.

In 1997, he said Petronas had to rescue the troubled Konsortium Perkapalan Berhad for RM2 billion.

He added that Petronas was made to underwrite the construction of the KLCC Twin Towers for RM6 billion and the construction of Putrajaya for a further RM22 billion.

"This amount could have been used more productively to fund a national pension program for Malaysians, as has been done by a certain Scandinavian country," he said in his speech at the launch of the book "Rich Malaysia, Poor Malaysians" at the Sultan Sulaiman Club in Kuala Lumpur last night.

The bailout and construction of mega projects was done during the premiership of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who initiated a series of major infrastructure ventures in the 1990s.

Ku Li said the exorbitant amount of the bailout and construction of these projects that was forced onto Petronas had also deprived the company of the much needed cash build-up for reinvestment, which would ensure its business sustainability.

He said today Petronas was on par with oil majors and was ranked as one of Fortune 500's largest and most profitable oil and gas companies.

"But sadly, it is being abused and treated as the piggy bank whenever the government needs cash in a hurry," he said.
Ku Li said while subsidizing consumer goods was not the most efficient of ways in managing the high cost of living, it was fairly understandable if the government extended a helping hand to the little man.

"What is sinful and cannot be forgiven is the ease with which the powers that be had been dishing out subsidies to such entities like the national power supplier, the independent power producers and some other non-power outfits," he said.

During the last few months of Mahathir's second stint as prime minister, he tried to look at possible ways Petronas could raise funds. One of his ideas was to break up Petronas into smaller business units, the Petronas Chemicals Group, Petronas Carigali, and Petronas Gas, selling equity off to Sabah and Sarawak state governments.

With tourism, air transport, and logistics depressed, national governments, including Malaysia will have to go deeper into deficit financing to pump their respective economies.

This is a dilemma for Petronas which will be under extreme pressure to pay some form of dividend to help the government manage the upcoming budget. Without help from Petronas, the finance minister will have to canvass a reintroduction of the GST, maybe even at a higher rate than previously, increases of income and corporate tax, and even the introduction of new taxes. The company has been a major contributor to Malaysia's wealth. However, times are changing where it may not be a dependable lifeline for much longer.

Can law enforcement officers... roadblocks?

Can law enforcement officers stop and search your car without setting up a roadblock?

Posted by Voon Lee Shan
Voonslegal Community 
6 June, 2023

When enforcement authorities like the police, customs, immigration department wants to do something (like stop and search someone, or enter into a private residence), they can only do so if the law permits. If there is no law allowing it, they would be acting beyond their powers – basically acting illegally. They could be sued for trespass and assault.

So with regards to police searching vehicles, there actually is a law on the matter. Following Section 24(1)(b) of the Police Act 1984:

“Any police officer may—
…stop and search without warrant any vehicle or vessel which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting is being used in the commission of any offence against any law in force…”

Therefore it’s quite safe to say that the police can legally search your car, but they must have reasons to suspect that your car was involved in a crime. So for example if the PDRM received information that a black Honda Civic was the get away car in a robbery and you drive a black Honda Civic, they may have legit grounds to search your car. 

If you are stopped, then, this basically means that, it’s best to ask the officers why they are searching your car. 
Do take note of their particulars including their names which you could see from the name tag on his uniform besides the car they used when you are stopped by them. 

But, it is not wise to travel alone in car and you may need to equip yourself with a hidden body camera to do some recordings in the event things go nasty.

Sarawak oil and gas ---lost forever?

SARAWAK’S OIL & GAS – LOST FOREVER? 

By Yusuf Abdul Rahman  

It is important for Sarawakians to realise that the main reason behind the proposal for the formation of Malaysia was in fact the Oil & Gas resources and wealth that was greedily coveted by the UMNo Malayans, who under Tunku Abdul Rahman had realised that Malaya’s economy after Independence would remain precarious without a new source of wealth, especially since most of the tin mines and rubber estates were still under British and Chinese control. 

Greg Poulgrain, a historian has noted from his study of previously classified British government documents that the primary impetus for forming Malaysia was oil, not ethnicity. 

This is why the Malayans were never really bothered about implementing the terms of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) as fully as they should have, especially once they had gotten their dirty hands on Sarawak’s Oil & Gas (Sabah’s as well, of course) – mission accomplished. 

MA63 was in fact silent about Sarawak’s Oil & Gas resources, which rightfully are inalienable assets of the state and not the federation, like all other natural resources such as forests and other minerals. 

It all started while the negotiations for independence were proceeding between Malaya and the British. The British since as early as 1953 had also started plans in motion for its “grand design” to merge all of their five colonial possessions in South East Asia into some form of “British SouthEast Asia Dominion”. Malaya was aware of this “grand design”, but the Borneo territories were not. 

According to an opinion article in the Daily Express dated 16th February 2020, "...As for the oil in Sarawak territory, the British were prepared to surrender that to the new federation under control of Malaya. Sir Anthony Abell, then Governor of Sarawak, in April 1956 observed in a communication to the Colonial Office that “the politicians in both Malaya and Singapore were showing considerable interest in the Borneo territories “including its empty spaces, its potential wealth, and its oil”.

This was even before Malayan independence. 

The British kept Sarawakians & Sabahans blissfully unaware of this considerable interest by the Malayans and the Singaporeans.   

While the Sarawak delegation may not have been aware of the negotiations going on behind the scenes between Malaya and Brunei prior to MA63, it is clear from historical records that the Malayans insisted from the start that Brunei’s oil revenues would pass to the federal government after 10 years. 

Negotiations failed when the Bruneians (the Sultan of Brunei in particular) did not want to give away their oil revenues, the main source of Brunei’s wealth.  

The Malayans therefore kept completely silent about Oil & Gas in their negotiations with Sarawak & Sabah, fully intending to take Sarawak & Sabah by surprise, which they did, since the “Development of mineral resources, mines, mining, minerals and mineral ores, oils and oilfields; purchase, sale, import and export of minerals and mineral ores; petroleum products; regulation of labour and safety in mines and oilfields;” was already provided in the Item 8 (j) of the Federal List, 9th Schedule of the Constitution of the Federation Malaya 1957. 

Sarawak & Sabah unfortunately did not give any importance to this nor even raise any query, since the entire negotiations were stage-managed by the British and the Malayans. To the deceptive British & Malayans, of course, silence meant consent. 

This is partly why MA63 is actually null and void, being signed by Britain & Malaya & purported Sarawak “representatives” while Sarawak was still a colony, following the Chagos case opinion by the ICJ. 

By 1966, the Malayans had enacted the Petroleum Mining Act 1966, which under section 1 (2) “shall apply throughout Malaysia but in its application to Sabah and Sarawak it shall have effect only with respect to off- shore land”. This Act was supposed to come into operation on 8th November 1969 with regard to Sarawak and Sabah. 

Why only off-shore land? Because by 1955 Shell had already started marine seismic surveys and in 1957 had relinquished 75% of its land lease. Initial drilling in the Temana field had also hit first oil in 1962. 

Earlier in July 1966, the Malayans had already enacted the Continental Shelf Act 1966, whereby they illegally and unconstitutionally took over the Continental Shelf that rightfully belonged to Sarawak. This gave the Malayans “all rights with respect to the exploration of the continental shelf and the exploitation of its natural resources are hereby vested in Malaysia and shall be exercisable by the Federal Government”. 

To do this, they first had to get rid of Singapore and secondly, Ningkan, who by 1965 was becoming a critic of the Malayanisation policy that had supplanted what was supposed to be Borneonisation. The Malayans never really wanted Singapore in the first place, nor did they really want Sarawak & Sabah either, only Sarawak & Sabah’s Oil & Gas. 

After 1966, the Malayan-controlled federal government started collecting the royalties that were paid by Shell Sarawak, which incidentally, at 10% and later 12.5%, were more than double what Sarawak was to get later from Petronas for more than 56 years. 

This was still not enough for the Malayan-controlled federal government and by the 1970s they started to seriously think about following the Pertamina (Indonesia) production-sharing model, to do which the illegal and unconstitutional Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA74) was enacted that vested the entire ownership of all petroleum resources within Malaysia with Petronas. 

So finally in 1976, Sarawak and Sabah thus “lost” complete ownership of our Oil & Gas, even if it was done illegally and unconstitutionally. Neither Sarawak nor Sabah have ever challenged PDA74 in court.  

In this way, instead of 10-12.5% as previously, Sarawak received a cash payment of 5% (based on crude oil or raw gas prices). The other 5% went to the federal government, who as the sole shareholder of Petronas, also got additional returns in the form of dividends and corporate tax, petroleum income tax and export duties. Altogether Petronas/the federal government received 92% of total net petroleum revenues, with approximately 6.5-7% going to the petroleum contractors such as Shell, leaving 1-1.5% to Sarawak. 

Has all been lost forever, or is it still possible for Sarawak to claw back the ownership of its own Oil & Gas resources from Malayan control and domination? 

That is a question that can only be answered by the people and the government of Sarawak. 

Clawing back our property from the hands of thieves is not easy and they will of course resist to the bitter end. 

The Sarawak government has made a good start with the formation of Petros and the imposition of SST on petroleum products. Revenue derived from petroleum products alone according to Sarawak Premier has reached RM8.52 billion todate, a significant amount, in view of the fact that the Federal budget still doesn’t give Sarawak a commensurate share based on Sarawak’s contribution to the national economy via our Oil & Gas revenues. 

The Federal government seems to think Petronas is the golden goose, when it is in fact Sarawak (and also Sabah). Yet they don’t feed the golden goose properly while stealing all the eggs. 

The Sarawak govt and Petros have taken the correct step of regaining control of Sarawak’s onshore petroleum assets. Next must be regaining full  
control of Sarawak’s offshore petroleum assets, while Oil & Gas still remain relevant and while we develop new sources of renewable energy. 

We are still talking here of potential revenues to Sarawak amounting not to tens of billions of ringgit but hundreds of billions of ringgit that can raise the living standards of all Sarawakians, especially those that have so far been marginalised and have not had proper access to development and socio-economic opportunities for advancement. 

Between 1976 and 2017, the value of crude Oil and raw Gas production exceeded 660 billion ringgit, out of which Sarawak only saw 33 billion ringgit in royalty, amounting to an average of 805 million ringgit per year. 

By now, the figure should have reached more than 1 trillion ringgit, with value added from processing of about 2 trillion ringgit, just from Sarawak alone. This is what Sarawak has lost over the last 46 years.  

It is largely from Sarawak’s Oil & Gas revenues that the Malayans have managed to siphon off 1.9 trillion ringgit into offshore bank accounts, as revealed by the Pandora Papers. This is another subject that they will not allow to be debated in Parliament. 

In trying to claw back as much Oil & Gas revenue as possible, through value added processing, Sarawak has now embarked on various initiatives involving setting up of various petrochemical and other refining plants to be able to process and utilise our own Oil & Gas resources for value added instead of being sold cheaply for fast cash, as is now being done by Petronas.  

We need to enhance our domestic gas distribution facilities so that Sarawakians can also enjoy cheaper energy that we now supply overseas and subsidise in Malaya. Malaya has more than 2,000 km of natural gas pipelines and Sarawak less than 50 km. Gas subsidy to Malayan power plants, industries and consumers alone has already amounted to more than 200 billion ringgit, while Sarawak gets zero. 

In order to get the full benefit of our own Oil & Gas resources, we need to regain full control and ownership of them from Petronas and Malaya. To do this we need to strengthen our regulatory capabilities and we need the political will to be tough with the Malayans, instead of constantly being pushed around and taken for a ride on our own Oil & Gas resources. 

As we can see, this has been a very expensive ride that has cost us at least a couple of trillion ringgit all this while, if we had developed our own Oil & Gas resources. We just cannot afford to be taken for a ride by the Malayans any more. They have been thinking of themselves all this while, and taken us for granted, even calling us their fixed deposit.  

No more. It is now more than high time for Sarawakians to think about ourselves and our own people. 

Or else, our Oil & Gas will truly be lost forever. 

Yusuf Abdul Rahman Kuching 23rd July 2022

The effect of the Federal Constitution not recognising MA63

1. According to State Legal Advisor, JC Fong, the effect of the FC not recognising MA63 would mean that MA63 was not legally binding under Malaysian law.

2. The UN legal opinion (19/09/63) referred to Malayan UN Representative Dato Ong Yoke Lin's letter to the UN (16/09/63) as stating that there was no new federation created just a name change to Malaysia. The letter did not mention that 3 new members were admitted on 16/09/63.  

It was the British legal strategy to amend the FC to admit new SSS members to the Malayan federation to avoid having to apply for a new UN membership under a new entity "Malaysia". Thus the British gov't sough the UN Legal opinion on this point. The Opinion stated that the name change was not legally forming a new international legal entity and therefore did not require a fresh application to the UN to be a new member. 

This was done to avoid international opposition to Malaysia and hence it might not be admitted as a member.  

The second leg of the strategy was to avoid scrutiny of the Decolonisation "Committee of 24" which would require legal compliance with Principle IX (9) UN Resolution 1541 to hold a real referendum for a non-independent colonial territory to join an independent federation. This avoided holding a referendum on Malaysia. (As explained in declassified docx and the UK Colonial Secretary, Duncan Sandys' UN telegram to his London office on 09/08/63). 

Following the Manila Accord (signed 31 July 1963 after MA63 was signed). The British again avoided a referendum (publicly opposed by Malayan PM & Permanent Sec. Ghazali Shafie after prompting by Sandys) but instructed the UN secretary to carry out an assessment of the people's wishes on Malaysia (similar to the Cobbold Commission), not a referendum.        

Thus, the UN Secretary without need to put the matter to a Gen Assembly vote, endorsed the change of name.

3. MA63 as an international agreement and bound by international law, was not registered till 1970, 7 years after signing. 

What is the legal effect?

UN Charter Art 102 (a) & (b) require that all UN members must register their agreement immediately on signing & ratification. Failure to do so will incur the penalty of not being able to invoke the teary (MA63) by the signatory parties on any issue relating to the treaty. 

After 7 years, arguably MA63 (if valid) would in effect have lapsed for non-compliance with the UN Charter and MA63 Art 8 which required all parties to do all things necessary to implement the agreement. 

In other words, for 7 years MA63 neither Malaya, S'pore, Sabah nor Sarawak would not have been able to invoke MA63 in any domestic or international issue or dispute. 

Arguably from this point of view, MA63 was rendered not binding because it was not concluded according to international law rules and requirements. 

4. Was MA63 a legally signed document? The Borneo High Court avoided dealing with this issue recently. According to the international legal principle stated by the ICJ in the Chago case, a colonial power cannot make a binding agreement with colonies under its control, as they did not have the power to do so.   

It has been asserted since 2013, that MA63 was void ab initio and not legally binding from the beginning, The reason given was that SSS were colonies not sovereign states with power or legal capacity to make binding international agreements. The 2019 Chagos case confirmed this conclusion. 

The second part of your comment will be answered later.

Sabah Double 6 -- 6/6/2023

Tolong baca .. 
Kalau tidak faham, cari cikgu... Belajar

We are gathered here today in remembrance of a tragic event. Sabah lost her 5th Chief Minister, Tun Fuad Donald Stephens along with 10 others. One of which this memorial was enacted here atop of Sandakan's Trig Hill, Datuk Chong Tain Vun, Communication and Works Minister.

Also tied to the tragedy of losing our finest leaders on the day known as the Double Six Tragedy, is yet another significant remembrance of a tragic lost to us Sabahans. 

Merely a week after this tragedy, we've also lost our grip on our most lucrative natural resource, our petroleum. 
----------------
Today, I'd like us to rekindle the fire in our hearts to protect, preserve and defend our land by whatever means we're able. Let us remember to defend our borders and rights as enshrined in MA63, is our duty.

Let us continue to respect our inheritance left by our elders who have gone before us.

#MA63Journey

Thank you Brave Sabahans YB Calvin Chong and Chinese Chamber Sandakan.

Monday, 5 June 2023

Malaysia is Malaya in disguise

From history and search online one can easily acquire all the necessary facts and make the following conclusion. Just sharing the following from friend;

Fact is in United nations, there was no new country Malaysia ever registered but a change of name from the federation of Malaya to federation of Malaysia after incorporating Sabah and Sarawak into territories of Federation of Malaya using "questionable" Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) as Sabah and Sarawak were colonies of Britain during signing the MA63 thus making the MA63 an invalid document?

And since Singapore was one of the signatories of MA63 with Singapore quitting federation of Malaysia in 1969 the MA63 was instantly null and void?

By right new agreement should be prepared and signed when Singapore left federation of Malaysia but it was never done making federation of Malaysia illegal??

It is unfortunate Court dismissed MA63 case on the ground federal Constitution amendment needed to allow such case in court ignoring the fact MA63 must first in existence before a change of name from federation of Malaya to federation of Malaysia?

Federal Constitution is in fact the old book of federation of Malaya adopted by the ruling parties as federation of Malaysia Constitution it has nothing to do with MA63?

Would Sarawak people like the court case to be appealed knowing very well high cost is inevitable and would Sarawak people willing to donate to pay for the appeal to "protect" Sarawak rights? 

Sarawak people dilemma.

Personal greed to form Malaysia

Comrades and Supporters,

Jugah and Ningkan both caused by personal greed, formed Malaysia. Jugah wanted to be Governor but later on settled as federal minister for Sarawak Affairs resident in Sarawak with no office in KL. How could a federal minister had no office in KL? This meant Jugah won't mind to be a puppet as long as he was compensated with a federal minister post.

Ningkan wanted to be Chief Minister badly because British worked behind the scenes to get members of Council Negri to support him. 

Both Ningkan and Jugah could decide not to proceed with no Malaysia Plan if they wanted but they both lacked the foresight.

Infact, both Jugah and Ningkan had threatened the British and Malaya to scrap the Malaysia Plan if they could not get what they wanted. Ningkan wanted Jugah to be governor but Malaya was not in favour. 

But Jugah later on destroyed Ningkan by leading Council Negri Members to petition to governor Tun Openg to dismiss Ningkan as chief minister. Thus led to a constitutional crisis.

Jugah knew a referendum won't work for Malaysia Plan because people were against the Malaysia Plan.



Voon Lee Shan 
5 June 1963