Pages

Powered By Blogger

Tuesday, 20 June 2023

TunM squandered RM529 billion of Petronas money

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.

Monday, 19 June 2023

1963年将沙巴砂拉越移交给马来西亚


1963 年将沙巴砂拉越主权移交给马来亚是非法的
(Robert Pei 18-06-2023)

未经人民同意,1963 年将沙巴砂拉越主权移交给马来亚是非法的

 联合国对沙巴和砂拉越支持马来西亚的结论的评论是不准确的。

 英国从未合法地获得人民根据联合国第 1541 号决议自由给予的同意,将他们各自的国家转移到马来亚。

 联合国的评估是基于并依赖于一份有缺陷和篡改的科博德报告,该报告被修改为声明大多数人“支持”马来西亚。

 其次,联合国违反了自己的非殖民化规则,没有坚持进行公民投票以了解人民对马来西亚的看法,尤其是在该计划遭到强烈反对的情况下。

 从文莱反马起义、英国大规模逮捕反对马来西亚的人、联合国代表团访问期间在砂拉越城镇举行的大规模反马来西亚示威,到 1962 年至 1990 年抵抗马来西亚的游击战,都可以看到这种反对。人联党提出 一份有 120K 签名(1962 年砂拉越人口的 1/7)的请愿书被英国人无视。

 此外,联合国也没有考虑 MA63 的有效性。 它还无视文莱党和 TNKU 与英国谈判独立的停火呼吁,违反了 Reso 1514。

 因此,在英国持续镇压反对马来西亚的势力的情况下,马来西亚于 1963 年 9 月 16 日在强制紧急状态下仓促宣布。

 也有人注意到,马来亚参与寻求接管沙巴和砂拉越是外部干涉我们人民自由行使自决权的过程,也违反了反对新殖民化的联合国非殖民化宣言。

 我们必须继续揭露马来亚人及其当地支持者关于马来西亚是如何创建的谎言。



TRANSFER OF SABAH SARAWAK SOVEREIGNTY TO MALAYA IN 1963 WAS UNLAWFUL WITHOUT THE PEOPLE CONSENT

The comment on the UN's conclusion on Sabah and Sarawak's support for Malaysia is inaccurate. 

The UK never legally obtained the people's consent freely given under UN Reso 1541 to transfer their respective countries to Malaya.  

The UN assessment was based on and relied on a flawed and doctored Cobbold Report which was amended to state that the majority of the people "supported" Malaysia. 

Secondly, the UN breached its own rules on decolonization by not insisting on conducting a referendum to gauge the people's view on Malaysia especially when there was strong opposition to the plan. 

This opposition was seen in the Brunei Anti-Malaysias uprising, British mass arrests of people opposing Malaysia, massive anti-Malaysia demos in Sarawak towns during the UN Mission team's visit and then the guerilla war to resist Malaysia from 1962 to 1990. The SUPP presented a petition of 120K signatures (1/7 of Sarawak's population in 1962) which was ignored by the British.

Further, the UN also did not look at MA63 validity. It also breached Reso 1514 by ignoring the ceasefire call by the Brunei Party & TNKU to negotiate independence with the UK. 

Thus Malaysia was hastily declared on 16 Sept 1963 under coercive emergency conditions with the ongoing British suppression of forces opposing Malaysia.

It is also noted that the Malayan involvement in seeking to take over Sabah and Sarawak was an external interference with the process of our people freely exercising self-determination and also breached the UN Decolonization Declaration against new colonisation.    

We must continue to expose the Malayan and their local supporters' lies about how Malaysia was created.

Saturday, 17 June 2023

刘仁祥:重建Bukit Assek

刘仁祥:Bukit Assek 重建---分杯羹给中区建筑商和地主

诗巫省华团会长认为政府要推行重建Bukit Assek 计划会对中区经济产生强大推动力。

据他说诗巫市议会的工程部和诗巫建筑商已发展一套在煤炭地建屋和路的工艺和标准。

谈发展,一定会联想中区农业发展。以目前实相,90%农地是种油棕。我认为单一种植是很不安全的。一旦遇到虫害,全军覆没;一旦跌价,损失惨重。农业耕种必须多样化。

谈到农业,就自然联想土地。其实中区一大片土地是闲置。政府地因政客们私心太重难申请;习俗地界限模糊,有地契地主通常块幅小。

我倒认为大中小农地有各自发展空间。大规模走向智能化适合大量生产出口。中小农业应付内需。

说中区适合种黄梨和椰树。我认为种植多样化水果才是硬道理。

官方的鼓励和扶持政策大中小农业很重要。银行贷款必须处处方便农民。

除了陆地的耕作,沐胶省到Tanjung Manis 一带很适合海洋牧场做商业养鱼。这可以多多参考国外先进智能化养鱼法。

是时候调整农业部,让他发挥作用。为了不浪费资源,去除联邦农业部,留砂邦的。同时清除贪污舞弊滥权和种族歧视弊端。

热带农产品在温带有很大市场,各相关部门是时候大力开拓市场;鼓励发展加工;增加投资者信心;让产品出口;加强技术研究等等。

木材业在中区算是全面退化。所以,规划新工业,事先准备好像Bintulu Semalaju 工业园。

于其去规划新工业区,还是好好处置一下Tanjung Manis 清真工业区。

工业都是以出口为导向以赚取外汇。Sibu 造船业就是一个好列子。

政府除了要大力扶持该行业,其他领域的行业,政府也要一视同仁。

发展绝对不可缺旅游业。中区城镇都有独特美食,有着丰富的旅游资源像生态旅游都可以发展中区的特色内容。政府相关部门必须进行勘探。

拉让江本身和上下游有着无限发展空间。

世界已经进入高科技智能化时代。一定要发展高科技智能化工作以提升经济留住人才。

政府的责任是和私人界一起开设技术学院培养人才。

记得各行业可以带动相关行业发展。

刘先生说发展是硬道理考核执政党是否可以继续生存;联邦跟邦议员是否可以蝉联。

发展一定要惠及各阶层人民,中区工程当然必须让中区建筑商和地主能参与和享受发展成果。

Thursday, 15 June 2023

Towns in Sarawak

As Sarawakian,which town place in Sarawak you don't go yet?Maybe one day later you will go there..For job or for fun things..

1.Kuching 
2.Kota Samarahan
3.Sriaman(Simanggang)
4.Sarikei
5.Sibu
6.Bintulu
7.Miri
8.Limbang
9.Lawas
10.Lingga
11.Sebuyau
12.Selangau
13.Mukah
14.Matu
15.Daro
16.Balingian
17.Tatau
18.Kapit
19.Kanowit
20.Long lama
21.Marudi
22.Bekenu
21.Bakong
22.Batu Niah
23.Lundu
24.Sematan
25.Bario
26.Saratok
27.Betong
28.Tanjong Manis
29.Rejang

Wednesday, 14 June 2023

沙巴20点

沙巴20点最低要求备忘录

1962 年 8 月 13 日至 14 日     唐納德·斯蒂芬斯 (Donald Stephens) 召集了一次沙巴政治領導人會議( The United Party, The Democratic Party and the Pasok Momogun Party, UNKO and USNO ),他們起草了一份 14 點(後來是 20 點)的最低要求備忘錄。這得到了砂拉越的支持。 


第一点:宗教

虽然伊斯兰教被列为马来西亚官方宗教而没有做出任何反对,然而伊斯兰教不应该在北婆罗洲实行。且所有在马来亚联合邦宪法中有关伊斯兰教的法规应当不许在北婆罗洲实行。

第二点:语文

马来文应该被列为马来西亚国语。
英文必须持续使用至到十年后的马来西亚日。
无论在何时、何地点或对洲与直辖区执行的目的,英文必须列为北婆罗洲的官方语言。

第三点:宪法

虽然北婆罗洲接受马来亚宪法作为马来西亚宪法的基础,马来西亚宪法需要是一份新的草拟文件,并需得到各州的同意。北婆罗洲的新宪法亦应受到重视。

第四点:联邦最高元首

北婆罗洲元首无权角逐马来西亚最高元首。

第五点:联邦名称

是“马来西亚”,而不是“大马来亚”。

第六点:入境事务

应与中央(联邦政府)联合管理,但中央政府对北婆罗洲的一切移民事务应先得到北婆罗洲政府的首肯。除安全理由外,中央政府对人员入境北婆罗洲并没有否决权。北婆罗洲在入境与出境事务中有保留权。

第七点:退出权力

北婆罗洲不应有权从联邦脱离。

第八点:婆罗洲化

指定当地人成为北婆罗洲公务员的过程应尽快实行。

第九点:英国官员

尽量鼓励英籍官员留任直到有适当北婆罗洲人选可以取代时为止。

第十点:国籍

根据科博德委员会报告的第148(k)段,北婆罗洲下列居民持有马来西亚国籍:
在北婆罗洲居住满五年
十年内有七年在北婆罗洲居住
出生于北婆罗洲,父母为北婆罗洲居民

第十一点:税收和金融

北婆罗洲负责自己的财务、发展及税收,并有权自行征税及借贷。

第十二点:原住民或土著人的特殊地位

北婆罗洲土著应享有类似于马来亚联合邦马来人的特权,但现有马来亚模式对北婆罗洲未必完全适用。

第十三点:政府

北婆罗洲总理由立法会非官守议员选出。
北婆罗洲实行部长制。

第十四点:转型时期

在加入马来西亚的七年过渡期内,北婆罗洲之立法权力将由北婆罗洲宪法赋予,联邦政府暂无权力插手
第十五点:教育

北婆罗洲的教育系统会被保留,并由北婆罗洲政府控制。

第十六点:保护宪法

在未获得北婆罗洲政府的同意之下,联邦政府没有权利修订或废除保护北婆罗洲权益的条文。
北婆罗洲的修宪权归北婆罗洲人民所有。

第十七点:联邦议会的代表

联邦国会的代表不仅仅应取决于北婆罗洲人口但也必须取决于州的面积,国会代表的人数亦不可少过新加坡代表的数量。

第十八点:首长名称

国家元首。

第十九点:国家名称
沙巴。

第二十点:土地、森林、当地政府和其他

联邦宪法规定之国家土地局权力并不适用于北婆罗洲。同样地,北婆罗洲亦不属地方政府委员会的权力范围内。


The 20 points

Point 1: Religion

While there was no objection to Islam being the national religion of Malaysia, there should be no State religion in North Borneo, and the provisions relating to Islam in the present Constitution of Malaya should not apply to North Borneo.

Point 2: Language

a. Malay should be the national language of the Federation

b. English should continue to be used for a period of 10 years after Malaysia Day

c. English should be an official language of North Borneo for all purposes, State or Federal, without limitation of time.

Point 3: Constitution

Whilst accepting that the present Constitution of the Federation of Malaya should form the basis of the Constitution of Malaysia, the Constitution of Malaysia should be a completely new document drafted and agreed in the light of a free association of states and should not be a series of amendments to a Constitution drafted and agreed by different states in totally different circumstances. A new Constitution for North Borneo was of course essential.

Point 4: Head of Federation

The Head of State in North Borneo should not be eligible for election as Head of the Federation.

Point 5: Name of Federation

"Malaysia" but not "Melayu Raya".

Point 6: Immigration

Control over immigration into any part of Malaysia from outside should rest with the Central Government but entry into North Borneo should also require the approval of the State Government. The Federal Government should not be able to veto the entry of persons into North Borneo for State Government purposes except on strictly security grounds. North Borneo should have unfettered control over the movements of persons other than those in Federal Government employ from other parts of Malaysia into North Borneo.

Point 7: Right of Secession

There should be no right to secede from the Federation

Point 8: Borneanisation

Borneanisation of the public service should proceed as quickly as possible.

Point 9: British Officers

Every effort should be made to encourage British Officers to remain in the public service until their places can be taken by suitably qualified people from North Borneo.

Point 10: Citizenship

The recommendation in paragraph 148(k) of the Report of the Cobbold Commission should govern the citizenship rights in the Federation of North Borneo subject to the following amendments:

a) sub-paragraph (i) should not contain the proviso as to five years residence

b) in order to tie up with our law, sub-paragraph (ii)(a) should read "7 out of 10 years" instead of "8 out of 10 years"

c) sub-paragraph (iii) should not contain any restriction tied to the citizenship of parents – a person born in North Borneo after Malaysia must be federal citizen.

Point 11: Tariffs and Finance

North Borneo should retain control of its own finance, development and tariff, and should have the right to work up its own taxation and to raise loans on its own credit.

Point 12: Special position of indigenous races

In principle the indigenous races of North Borneo should enjoy special rights analogous to those enjoyed by Malays in Malaya, but the present Malaya formula in this regard is not necessarily applicable in North Borneo.

Point 13: State Government

a) the Prime Minister should be elected by unofficial members of Legislative Council

b) There should be a proper Ministerial system in North Borneo.

Point 14: Transitional period

This should be seven years and during such period legislative power must be left with the State of North Borneo by the Constitution and not be merely delegated to the State Government by the Federal Government.

Point 15: Education

The existing educational system of North Borneo should be maintained and for this reason it should be under state control.

Point 16: Constitutional safeguards

No amendment modification or withdrawal of any special safeguard granted to North Borneo should be made by the Central Government without the positive concurrence of the Government of the State of North Borneo
The power of amending the Constitution of the State of North Borneo should belong exclusively to the people in the state.
(Note: The United Party, The Democratic Party and the Pasok Momogun Party considered that a three-fourths majority would be required in order to effect any amendment to the Federal and State Constitutions whereas the UNKO and USNO considered a two-thirds majority would be sufficient.)

Point 17: Representation in Federal Parliament

This should take account not only of the population of North Borneo but also of its size and potentialities and in any case should not be less than that of Singapore.

Point 18: Name of Head of State

Yang di-Pertua Negara.

Point 19: Name of State

Sabah.

Point 20: Land, Forests, Local Government, etc.

The provisions in the Constitution of the Federation in respect of the powers of the National Land Council should not apply in North Borneo. Likewise, the National Council for Local Government should not apply in North Borneo.

Tuesday, 13 June 2023

当前这一代要实现MA63---安华

当前这一代要事实MA63---安华
马来亚以马来西亚联邦名义殖民沙砂两国从国阵巫统从1963年开始到今天,对MA63完全不尊重。

联邦政府换手了,希盟联邦政府还是想方设法掌控,耍赖,玩表面功夫。

60年后的今天,马联邦政府多少都被沙砂掐脖子,所以,下放一些。还是一样在言语上大作功夫。

就2023年财政预算案,总共资金是马币3881亿:
行政用途:2891亿
发展用途:990亿

三邦分配:
马来亚:869亿
沙巴: 65亿
砂拉越: 56亿

完全没有把沙砂当一回事。

只有特别拨款有从新启动拨马币3亿。这特别拨款在1970开始就停止了。好像只拨过一次。这笔账,有一天,还是要清算一下。

砂拉越31代表在前线完全对砂没有作用。连吭一声都没有。

砂政府活像傀儡,任由马联邦斩割。

今天,大家都很清楚马联邦是处处违宪,实际上是狐假虎威。根本不堪一击。

马联邦还是马联邦不间断掠夺,剥削,打压,抢劫和霸凌沙砂两国后来送一点点礼。以前,更野蛮到还要沙砂两国感恩呢!

60年后的今天,有Chagos islands 提供参考和国际法的参照,沙砂政府其实有法定可以告联邦政府上国际法庭。

现在,球是在沙砂政府的脚下。沙砂人民必须团结一致向沙砂政府施压要回MA63协议的自主权权益。

只有除掉没作为的政府,改朝换代,尤其是砂政府,坐镇60年垄断政经。

现在,是时候沙砂人民要发挥自决权,去殖民化打救沙砂。

Monday, 12 June 2023

JCFong MA63 is not legally binding under Malaysia laws

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.