OMO Sarawak

Only Sarawak State government can repeal Oil Mining Ordinance, says Assistant Minister

KUALA LUMPUR (June 26): A Sarawak State Assistant Minister said today that only the Sarawak State government can repeal the Oil Mining Ordinance (OMO) 1958 because it was passed by its State Legislative Assembly.

As such, national oil company Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas) is bound by the OMO, said Sarawak State government’s Assistant Minister for Law, state-federal relations and project monitoring Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali in her Facebook post today.

“[The OMO] is a valid law and will remain valid unless repealed by our State Legislative Assembly,” said Sharifah.

To recap, Petronas failed in its motion seeking leave for a declaration from the Federal Court that the formation of PDA 1974 implied that the OMO was repealed.

It also filed an application for leave to commence proceedings under Article 4 (4) of the Federal Constitution, seeking a declaration that the PDA 1974 applied with regard to the regulatory control of upstream activities in Sarawak.

In an earlier statement, Petronas said that the application was declined solely based on technical grounds and that the matter falls outside of the Federal Court’s jurisdiction.

“The Federal Court did not in any way determine or endorse the merits of the legal position taken by the Government of Sarawak to regulate upstream petroleum activity under its OMO 1958," said Petronas.

Sharifah however disagreed, noting that since the motion has been dismissed, the Sarawak State government can enforce the OMO against Petronas, pointing to how the State government can gain revenues from licences, leases or permits imposed on all players including Petronas.

The provisions under the OMO “are not inconsistent with the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) 1974”, she said.

“Section 3 of OMO makes it an offence for any person who is found to be exploring, prospecting or mining petroleum or natural gas upon any land in Sarawak without any lawful authority to do so under any provisions of the OMO.

“Section 4 of OMO sets out types of licences or lease that a person may apply,” she said, adding that therefore Petronas is bound by the OMO and has to comply with the provisions in carrying out any oil and gas (O&G) exploration, prospecting and mining activities both on- and offshore Sarawak.

“Also by virtue of our Sarawak Land Code, State Land is defined to include the bed of any river, stream, lake or watercourse and also the foreshore and beds of the sea within the boundaries of Sarawak,” Sharifah added.

That, she said, means that any person occupying Sarawak State land for upstream activities is “required to have the authority under the Land Code” or by a license issued under OMO.

“The State Government has decided to enforce our laws to the full extent,” Sharifah added. “Petronas can still bring the matter to the High Court, but let us be mindful that no laws can be declared so simply as invalid. If I were Petronas, I would not do that.”

Petronas goes to court.... Sarawak's oil and gas claim

Petronas goes to court over Sarawak’s O&G authority claim

This article first appeared in The Edge Financial Daily on June 5, 2018

KUALA LUMPUR: Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas) is challenging the Sarawak government’s claim to regulatory authority in the upstream oil and gas (O&G) sector. The national oil company is taking the question to the Federal Court via an application filed yesterday.

At the heart of the matter is whether the extraction of petroleum resources requires mining leases from the state government

While the state had repeatedly said it has regulatory authority over such activities, Petronas is now asserting it does not need such approvals from the state to undertake upstream O&G activities in Sarawak.

In a statement yesterday, Petronas said it is seeking a declaration from the apex court that the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA) is the law applicable for the nation’s petroleum industry. The company is also seeking a declaration that it is the exclusive owner of petroleum resources in the country as well as the only regulator of upstream activities nationwide, including in Sarawak.

“The court filing is done to seek and clarify Petronas’ role as the custodian of the nation’s oil and gas resources and not an act of suing the Sarawak state government,” said Petronas. “We remain committed to support Sarawak’s aspiration to participate in the oil and gas industry in the state, for as long as it is within the framework of the PDA.”

The application names the Sarawak government as the respondent. The state’s Attorney-General’s Chambers confirmed that it has been served with a notice from the Federal Court Registry.

“At the moment, the state has yet to receive the motion filed by Petronas related to the application,” State Assistant Minister in the Chief Minister’s Department for Law, State-Federal Relations and Project Monitoring Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali said in a statement.

“The state government will do everything within its powers, in accordance with the rule of law, to defend our rights in this matter,” she added.

In April, Sarawak Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Abang Johari Abang Openg said companies operating in the upstream O&G sector in Sarawak must obtain the necessary licences and leases from the state beginning July 1.

Malaysia. That interpretation would mean the Sarawak state government could no longer consider itself the authority under the ordinance, Petronas wrote.

Petronas asserted that the PDA had, in any case, superseded the ordinance. Petronas’ application to the Federal Court includes a declaration that the Oil Mining Ordinance was impliedly repealed by the PDA.

Petronas in its application also expressed concerns that the state government may interfere with the operations of its subsidiaries and contractors. The concerns include its worry that production sharing contractors may face uncertainty as to whom to deal with in respect of regulatory approval.

Additionally, Petronas raised the worry that the state government may revoke work permits of non-Sarawakian workers in upstream activities or refuse to renew the permits upon expiry.

Petros was incorporated in July 2017. In August 2017, Abang Johari reportedly said Petros will enable Sarawak to actively participate in O&G extraction activities in the state while actively pursuing its quest for a 20% royalty from Petronas.

At present, the federal and state governments are entitled to a 5% royalty each as stipulated in the PDA. Increasing the rate to 20% would entail amending the PDA via Parliament.

The state’s quest for a higher royalty began with Abang Johari’s predecessor Tan Sri Adenan Satem back in 2014. Adenan had taken over as chief minister in 2014 and oversaw a landmark motion to ask for a 20% oil royalty passed in the state assembly later that year.

The motion had been mooted by state opposition. Adenan passed away in January 2017.

 

砂资源Vs砂地税

砂资源Vs砂地税

砂拉越有超级多的资源。就石油据最保守估计是85万桶。何只！然而咱们砂人还要面对用贵石油成品。还要面对种种税务压力。

看看汶莱一天才出产10万桶石油，几乎没有还什么税。根本没有所谓的土地税。

再看看人家阿联酋7国中的Dubai 一天才出产65万桶油，人民丰衣足食以外，更是享受高级的生活水准。

反观咱们砂拉越应有尽有，却要还让人喘不过气的城郊区和城市区的地税，期限60年。

每英亩地马币：

农业地：200

城郊地：2500

城市地：5000

突然，砂政府，完全不顾民意，自作主张把很多诗巫西岸的农业地更改为城郊地，地费大暴涨达12倍多。

古晋石角，农业地更暴涨20倍多。可是，跟人民严重脱节的天然资源和城市发展部长Tengah Ali 却说这是合理的。跟汶莱和阿联酋7国完全不征收土地税对比一下，什么叫合理？

我不反对象征性的征收一些土地税以供土地局员工们的薪水和行政管理费。那里像现有的政策，就想着在人民身上榨取。

砂拉越超级丰富资源，不是每个砂百姓都有份吗？

这已经做了二，三十年的部长都大捞特劳捞得盘满钵满，也太自我为中心了。站在部长的高度，完全不顾民生。

60年的政治经济垄断已经严重制造贫富差距两极化。财富几乎都掌控在政治集团这些顶级的政客们的手中。

扎希：联邦与砂和谐合作。。更大进步繁荣

扎希：联邦与砂和谐合作 砂人享受更大进步繁荣

他这些话是会激怒无限砂人。我们倒认为马来亚没有沙砂老早就破产告终了。他还敢来砂说大话。

在60年前，马联邦以巫统为主，承诺给沙砂进步繁荣还是停留在空中。

今天，这巫统主席应该不知无耻为何物吧！他竟敢重复这些话。

看，不参组马联邦的汶莱是真的进步繁荣了。从马联邦退出的新加坡更是进步繁荣，而且已经是个先进国。

反观，沙砂60年是不间断的被掠夺，剥削，打压，抢劫和霸凌。

马来亚假借马联邦的名义光明正大的来抢夺沙砂资源去发展马来亚，导致沙砂沦落到今天落后不堪的地步。

一条泛婆罗洲大道到今天已60年还没建成。

各种基本设施非常不足。全沙砂道路网水准低落。

水电供应很不到位。医疗服务不理想和设备很不足，常常需要社会人士捐赠。残校沙砂最最多。互联网服务差，有学子要爬上树去上网，等等等等。

马联邦每年从砂掠夺两，三千亿税收，回馈的连6% 都不到，说什么废话跟马联邦合作可享更进步繁荣。我看他的良心早就被狗吃了。

我倒认为脱马独立才是进步繁荣唯一的出路。

砂医疗执行权

Hasidah: 马联邦必须授砂政府执行权以纠正医护缺点

砂拉越总理属（法律，MA63, 邦-联邦）副部长Hasidah 认为砂的卫生部必须减少砂和马来亚医疗覆盖率，可达性，品质和安全的差距。

她认为马联邦必须授执行权给砂卫生部处理健康医疗体系那些缺点。

砂议会人民代表实施志豪附议砂政府有提供马联邦参考和建议方案以提高和升级砂医疗服务以让砂全民获益。

马联邦宪章80（4）确实有明文规定授权和义务。

还有联邦宪法80（5）他们有必要提供资金让砂政府提供行政安排像设置维护，人力资源，医院和诊所设备等等等等以让全砂百姓获益。

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.