Saturday, September 29, 2012

The real remedy is just a little honesty

When facts and figures are distorted and lied about, there will never be a true solution. Imagine being paid below poverty wages by a very large margin, to the point of not even making a profit, but losing, who in his right mind would want to work? This is the reality of the establishment who employ workers in Sabah and Sarawak.

The accusations that Sabahan and Sarawakians just want to enjoy themselves are just blatant lies. Imagine being paid RM300 per month, from 9 am to 9pm, 7 days a week. It happened to my daughter, and also my colleague. Transportation and food alone eats up the wages. Not yet taking into account the transportation. The salary appear reasonable, until you take into account transportation costs. Even international companies like McDonald, paying at RM2 per hour is no exception. Luckily, the McDonald was at walking distance from my house. 

Why the poverty level in Sabah is set at RM1200? Because of the high cost of living. Brought about unfair Federal trade practises, such as monopolies on transportation from Sabah and Peninisular Malaysia, forceful delivery of goods via Port Klang instead of direct flights to Kota Kinabalu, for all shipments by air or sea, when Sabah is actually nearer to Hong Kong than KL or port Klang. It routinely happens to me when I order goods from China. It is much cheaper shipping to Brunei than to Sabah, because the distance is double.

Even road usage is discriminated by building roads that are of so low standards, that maximum tonnage is much lower than in West Malaysia, increasing the cost of transportation even further even within the state. Despite the low cost of transportation from SAbah to West Malaysia, Sabah is discriminated even further by not being allowed to export at all to West Malaysia. It is just so ridiculous as to be preposterous but it is very true.

Despite the huge disparity in poverty, absolutely nothing has been done about it. Only the latest figure of subsidy of RM300 million, in order to balance the cost of goods in Sabah, brought about by Malayan policies. Too little too late. It cannot even lower the price of cement by RM1.  Let alone lowering the price of houses that are already being burdered by lack of infrastructure supported by government. Every thing must be bought by the consumers, from transformers, electric and telephone poles to road junctions even those that are located 1 mile away. With certainly it was at Severy Putatan. AT SMC Damai, not sure but the project was delayed because SMC refused to pay for the  roundabout going into the Hospital, despite SMC being state government owned.

When Sabahans and Sarawakians keep on being silent when lies like this article is thrown at them, accusing them of laziness and greediness.

Sabahans are to be blamed in the end for supporting a government that steal resources from them, the oild revenue, while burdening Sabah with even more unfair and ridiculous policies such as forced transhipment via Port Klang and KLIA, taking over virtually all federal jobs, from office boys to department heads,  and yet given subsidies that are much lower than other much more prosperous states by a large margin than Sabah, by up to 300% poorer but given 300% less subsidy for the poor and now the so called price subsidy of RM300 million. The transport subsidy in one state in Malaya already exceed this amount, without taking into account the blatant discrimination in road carriage standards and restriction of exports from Sabah to Malaya. All for a few ringgit that they get once every 5 years, during election time.

There is no corruption in election, ONLY STUPIDITY.

28 September 2012 | last updated at 11:48PM
Remedy lies in better wages, stronger work ethic

SINGAPORE 'JOLT': Sabah and Sarawak governments, bosses need to do more so that local workers won't be lured abroad
Description: John TeoBUSINESSES in Sarawak -- from big plantations, contractors or manufacturers to small and medium-scale enterprises to restaurants and coffee shops -- all share a rather familiar problem: a dearth of local workers, or at least reliable ones.
Jobs go a-begging but employers, often out of sheer desperation, have to resort to looking outside the state to find the requisite workers. Local newspapers in the state are filled not just with job vacancies but advertisers promising a godsend to employers: a ready supply of foreign workers.
That was probably why a community leader said just the other week that the rejection by Singapore of youthful workers from the native communities of both Sarawak and Sabah is a blessing in disguise.
There is something like 30,000-40,000 Sarawakians -- most of them Dayaks -- living in Johor. It is estimated at least half the number actually cross the Causeway each day to work in Singapore. Many of them live in Johor because they have families and they are therefore able to have the best of both worlds: earning in Singapore dollars but enjoying the lower Malaysian cost of living.
There are probably many thousands more of younger Sarawakians employed in unskilled service jobs and actually living in Singapore. They might have been influenced by friends or relatives who tell them of the draw of attractive wages and bright city lights there. In any case, such workers may be following a time-honoured local Dayak tradition of berjalai: seeking employment abroad not so much out of necessity as gaining the opportunity to see and experience a different world.
It seems like such a group of younger Sarawak natives abroad may now be ruining the good name of Sarawak workers in general, if the policy adjustment on hiring Malaysians by Singapore that intentionally or otherwise impacts negatively the hiring of native Sarawakians and Sabahans below the age of 35 tells us anything.
Singapore has always been especially welcoming of Malaysian workers. While some gripe that the island republic is discriminating against natives from the two Borneo states, a little introspection may be useful. Singapore could not have taken this step lightly given its insatiable need for foreign labour and a growing local intolerance towards foreign workers generally there.
Singapore has clearly decided that younger native workers from Sarawak and Sabah are more trouble than they are worth. It may now claim there is no change in policy on hiring foreign workers and that may be true but there is no stopping it not entertaining certain job applicants from both states.
The state governments of Sarawak and Sabah will be doing both states a great service if they proactively take steps to regulate (even perhaps to the extent of actively discouraging, through punitive exit levies, for example) the flow of their workers outside the two states.
In the case of Sarawak, the realisation of the Sarawak Corridor Of Renewal Energy (Score) has already started to bring in its wake thousands of technical skilled and semi-skilled jobs for locals.
The timing of the Singapore "jolt" seems quite fortuitous. Businesses in the two states are currently grappling with the challenge of satisfying the statutory minimum wage recently promulgated by the government. The minimum wage requirement will at least go some way towards addressing workers' complaints about unattractive local wages.
Perhaps far more important -- especially as Sarawak and Sabah face up to the demands made of a modern economy -- is the need to inculcate a stronger work ethic among the work forces in both states.
Employers in both states invariably complain about the reliability of local workers, some of whom seem to have the habit of absenteeism, especially after payment of wages or a festive break. Businesses naturally will suffer if they are susceptible to the whims of individual workers to turn up for work.
It seems rather anachronistic that while both states ostensibly suffer from labour shortages in practically all job categories, even small restaurants seem to be amply staffed with service crews. Hopefully, beginning with the minimum wage, we will see a rationalisation across the board of hiring practices, with fewer workers hired to work more productively and earn higher wages so that the problem of local workers tempted by the lure of ostensibly better wages to work abroad will also sooner solve itself.

Only 300 million to subsidise Sabah's prices?

Budget reflects Najib’s commitment for Sabah – Musa – BorneoPost Online

by Murib Morpi. Posted on September 29, 2012, Saturday
Musa (third left) and his State cabinet ministers watching Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak delivering the Budget 2013 speech which was telecast live from Parliament house in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.
KOTA KINABALU: Chief Minister Datuk Seri Musa Aman has described the 2013 Budget as reflecting Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s continuous commitment and concern towards the needs and interests of Sabah and its people.
Musa said Najib had once again proven his sincerity towards the people in Sabah through allocations for various development projects and initiatives as announced under the Budget.
“It takes into account the interests, prosperity, wishes and the needs of all groups of people – the farmers, fishermen, youth, women, civil servants, the private sector, the disabled as well as business and corporate communities.
“I particularly thank the Prime Minister, who has through this people’s budget continued to give attention and commitment to us in Sabah,” he told reporters at Sri Gaya after watching the live telecast of the tabling of the Budget yesterday.
He said the state government also highly welcomed the announcement of RM386 million to standardise the prices of daily goods in Sabah with that in PeninsularMalaysia.
Musa, who is also Finance Minister, also commended the federal government for continuing the Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia (BR1M), which now covers single individuals with incomes below RM2,000.
Describing the 2013 Budget as ‘people-oriented and people-friendly’, he said the new government spending plan was sincere, inclusive and had realistically taken into account the interests and needs of all groups.
He added the new budget, which also emphasises on human capital development, would be able to boost Malaysia’s economic development towards achieving high income status.
“As such, I hope all parties, namely leaders, civil servants, the private sector and the citizens in general wil continue strengthening their commitment and work with the federal government to realise the agenda of this Budget, especially in terms of the state’s development and the prosperity of its people,” he said.

To enable your comment to be published, please refrain from vulgar language, insidious, seditious or slanderous remarks. This includes vulgar user names.

Malaysia has no central government

Written by Admin 
Wednesday, 19 September 2012 13:22


SUDAH lama saya hendak menyebut secara khusus tentang apa yang saya hendak perkatakan ini walaupun saya pernah menulis tentangnya secara rambang dan tidak khusus kepada sesiapa yang hendak bercakap tentang kenegaraan dan politik. Tetapi oleh kerana kita dapati kesilapan ini masih terlalu jelas dan tidak diperbaiki saya ingin menyebutnya kali ini.

Saya ingin mengingatkan pemimpin-pemimpin kita dan semua yang mahu mendengarnya bahawa negara kita ini adalah sebuah negara persekutuan. Di negara kita tidak ada kerajaan pusat. Di Putrajaya itu adalah pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan (Federal Government), bukan Kerajaan Pusat (Central Government).
Negara yang mempunyai kerajaan pusat adalah negara-negara ‘Unitary’ seperti Thailand, Indonesia dan banyak negara-negara lain. Negara kita terbentuk di atas persetujuan kerajaan-kerajaan negeri yang berdaulat untuk membentuk bersama sebuah gabungan persekutuan. Harus di ingat yang negeri-negeri yang berada di dalam persekutuan ini hanya wujud pada 2 Februari 1948 apabila negeri-negeri yang berada di dalam semenanjung ini menandatangani perjanjian persekutuan itu.

Maka terbentuklah sebuah negara persekutuan yang di namakan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu yang akhirnya mencapai kemerdekaan pada 1957 dahulu. Pada tahun 1963 tanggal 16 September persekutuan ini di sertai oleh Sabah dan Sarawak maka persekutuan ini dinamakan Persekutuan Malaysia. Hari kelahiran Malaysia itu baru sahaja dirayakan buat kali yang ke-49 tiga hari yang lepas.

Isu ini penting untuk di fahami dan diperbetulkan supaya kita mengenal negara kita yang sebenarnya. Datuk Seri Rais Yatim patut menggunakan istilah ini melalui media perdana kita kerana terlalu ramai di kalangan rakyat yang menganggap Putrajaya itu sebagai Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Pusat, walhal ia adalah Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan.

Kalau di Thailand, kotaraya Bangkok itu adalah Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Pusat kerana Thailand adalah sebuah negara ‘Unitary’ dan negara gajah putih itu tidak ada kerajaan negeri di bawah naungannya. Itu sebabnya Kerajaan Pusat Thailand secara moralnya berkuasa sepenuhnya keatas setiap inci negara itu.

Nampaknya pemimpin besar kita di Putrajaya selalu bersikap seperti pemimpin sebuah negara ‘Unitary’ kerana banyak perkara yang menunjukan mereka tidak menghormati kedaulatan kerajaan dan rakyat negeri-negeri yang tertentu.

Mereka mungkin terlupa yang Malaysia ini adalah gabungan negeri-negeri yang berdaulat yang telah bersetuju dan bersepakat untuk berada di dalam sebuah negara persekutuan.

Jika begitu keadaannya maka Putrajaya tidak boleh bertindak dengan sewenang-wenangnya terhadap negeri-negeri yang berada di dalam persekutuan ini seperti yang sedang mereka lakukan sekarang ini.

Putrajaya wajar ingat yang negeri-negeri di dalam persekutuan ini adalah negeri-negeri yang berdaulat dan Putrajaya wajar mempunyai perhubungan dengan negeri-negeri di dalam persekutuan dengan berhemah seperti kita menghormati mana-mana negara yang berdaulat yang lain.

Putrajaya juga mesti menerima hakikat yang negeri-negeri itu semuanya mempunyai kerajaan yang beraja (kecuali Melaka, Pulau Pinang, Sabah dan Sarawak) dan negeri-negeri ini juga mempunyai Dewan Legislatif mereka sendiri.

Tetapi mungkin isu ini tidak diambil berat oleh pihak pemerintah, itulah agaknya kenapa kerajaan BN di Putrajaya itu selalu tidak menghormati kerajaan-kerajaan setengah negeri terutamanya kerajaan yang di tadbir oleh Pakatan Rakyat.

Agaknya inilah sebabnya Putrajaya telah mencemari semangat persekutuan itu dengan menyekat pembayaran royalti minyak kepada rakyat Kelantan semata-mata kerana rakyat Kelantan memilih kerajaan yang tidak sebulu dengan Putrajaya.

Dalam ucapan Najib akhir-akhir ini menunjukkan kesombongannya yang berkata kerajaan ‘Pusat’ telah memberikan pembangunan di negeri itu sebanyak ini dan di negeri ini sebanyak ini seolah-olah itu bukan tanggungjawab Putrajaya tetapi sebagai satu ‘favour’ yang besar dari Putrajaya.

Semuanya itu sememangnya tanggungjawab kerajaan persekutuan. Najib sendiri mesti menggunakan istilah ‘Kerajaan Persekutuan’ kepada kerajaan yang beliau pimpin dan bukannya ‘Kerajaan Pusat’.

Sebelum kita dapat membetulkan perkara-perkara yang lain elok kita memahami dahulu asas kewujudan negara kita. Jika boleh gunakanlah istilah yang betul tentang perkara ini. Kerajaan yang di ketuai oleh Najib di Putrajaya itu adalah kerajaan persekutuan, bukannya kerajaan pusat.

Pihak yang ingin mewujudkan kerajaan ‘Unitary’ yang berpusat di Kuala Lumpur dahulu ialah Gagasan Malayan Union yang hendak dibawa oleh British dahulu dan telah ditentang oleh rakyat Malaya dahulu.

British telah cuba untuk menghilangkan sempadan-sempadan negeri-negeri di dalam semenanjung ini dan merampas kuasa Raja-Raja Melayu dan dan menggantikan tugas Raja-Raja itu dengan tugas-tugas ceremonial sahaja. Mengikut perancang British Kuala Lumpur adalah ibu negara Malayan Union itu; tidak ada kerajaan negeri dan Dewan Legislatifnya lagi.

Kepada Najib dan semua pemimpin kerajaan pada hari ini, elok dibezakan di antara kerajaan persekutuan dengan kerajaan pusat. Kalau kerajaan kita adalah Kerajaan Pusat tidak ada Majlis Raja-Raja yang mewakili setiap negeri yang berdaulat itu dan mewakili salah seorang dari baginda untuk mengambil giliran menjadi Yang Di Pertuan Agong setiap lima tahun seorang di peringkat persekutuan.

Di negara ini tidak ada kerajaan pusat. Yang kita ada ini adalah kerajaan persekutuan, walaupun dalam banyak hal putrajaya bertindak seperti kerajaan ‘Unitary’ yang ingin dibawa oleh Malayan Union dahulu terutamanya kepada negeri-negeri yang partinya sudah hilang kuasa.

Itulah saya selalu sebutkan dalam tulisan saya, jika Malayan Union dahulu ditentang kewujudannya oleh kita, tetapi semangat Malayan Union itu bertambah kuat akhir-akhir ini, tetapi dilakukan oleh bangsa dan rakyat kita sendiri.


Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Appeal court must not add words to the law
Malayan Federal Appeal court must respect the Malaysia agreement, and use proper english.
When the words say "in Sabah" it means "in Sabah" lah, not to be rephrased into "in Sabah courts" only. This is very common in Malaysian court judgements, adding words that are not there in the first place. That is without taking the whole spirit of the agreement and law itself. If the spirit were to be taken into account, the meaning is very clear, and the lawyers had pointed it out very very clearly.

Let us hope that the lawyers in Sabah should bring it to the Federal Court, and failing that to the international court. After all, it is the livelihood of Sabah lawyers that are at stake. It also means the livelihood of all Sabahans. IF even lawyers have problems finding jobs as had happend to all other professions from the highest to the lowest, despite the Malaysian agreement insisting on Borneonisation of government servants in Sabah, imagine what will happen to Sabahan lawyers.

Home - News - Sabah - SLA to appeal decision on foreign lawyers to practise in Sabah
SLA to appeal decision on foreign lawyers to practise in Sabah

Posted on September 26, 2012, Wednesday

KOTA KINABALU: In efforts to safeguard and protect local lawyers’ rights, Sabah Law Association (SLA) will be appealing against the decision of the Court of Appeal to allow foreign lawyers represent parties in arbitration in Sabah.

Its president GBB Nandy @ Gaanesh when contacted yesterday said they have a month to file the appeal.

“We are appealing to safeguard protection given under the federal constitution for Sabah lawyers for work done by a lawyer both in and outside the courts,” he stressed.

The Court of Appeal had on Monday unanimously allowed an appeal by Mohamed Azahari Matiasin against the decision of High Court judge Datuk David Wong Dak Wah on Oct 26, 2010 which ruled that a Sabah advocate has an exclusive right to legal practice both ‘in and outside’ courts and that includes the rights to represent parties in arbitration proceedings.

David in his decision then ordered foreign lawyers, who are not advocates within the meaning of the Advocates Ordinance 1953 (Sabah Cap. 2), prohibited by the Ordinance from representing parties to arbitration proceedings in Sabah.

In a landmark ruling, the three-man panel of judges comprising Datuk Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus, Datuk Azahar Mohamed and Datuk Balia Yusof Haji Wahi held, among others, that foreign lawyers who are not advocates within the meaning of the said Advocates Ordinance 1953 (Sabah Cap. 2) are not prohibited by the Ordinance from representing parties to arbitration proceedings in Sabah.

The court also ordered second respondent Samsuri Baharuddin and 813 others to pay cost in the sum of RM10,000 to the applicant who also named SLA as the first respondent in the appeal.

Counsel Ho Kin Kong who acted for Mohamed Azahari in his submissions stated that the position in West Malaysia is beyond doubt, that a person representing a party in an arbitration proceedings need not be an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of the Legal Profession Act (LPA) 1976 and that the LPA has no application to an arbitration proceedings in West Malaysia.

Ho submitted that the provisions of the Sabah Advocates Ordinance, when read in its totality, indicates that the Ordinance is not applicable to arbitration nor is the Ordinance meant to give Sabah advocates the exclusive right to appear in arbitrations held in Sabah.

He pointed out that it was clear that barristers and solicitors in England do not have the exclusive rights to appear for parties in an arbitration hearing and the same applies to Sabah advocates in arbitrations in Sabah.

Gaanesh, who acted for SLA among others, told the court that the applicant could not rely on Section 35 (1) of the LPA as under Section 8 (1) of the Sabah Advocate Ordinance, the additional words ‘to practise in Sabah’ meaning that to include the acts that can be done by a lawyer both inside and outside the court.

He argued that arbitration is not being held in court and it is not a court proceeding.

Gaanesh further submitted that if any lawyers who are not admitted to the Sabah Bar, and represent parties in arbitration in Sabah, they also do the work of a lawyer which a lawyer admitted to the Sabah Bar can do.

He stressed that in order for anyone to represent parties in arbitration proceedings in Sabah, they must be admitted to the Sabah bar because they are safeguarded under the federal constitution which is actually part of the Malaysia Agreement and also part of the Cobbold Commission.

Further, Gaanesh submitted that the Arbitration Act in England which says that it is not exclusive for barrister or solicitor to do arbitration proceedings could not be used in Sabah.

Counsels Alex Decena and Christina Liew, who acted for the second respondent also submitted that the High Court judge had rightly pointed out that although non-lawyers were allowed to appear in arbitration in England, the position there had no bearing on the meaning of the words ‘practice in Sabah’.

They also submitted that the rationale and spirit behind this exclusivity is to give Sabah government the sole control of employment of non-residents in Sabah.

They further submitted that rationale and spirit would be destroyed and foreign lawyers would be able to set up their offices in Sabah and Sarawak to solely engage legal works for arbitration proceedings.

Read more:

Kalau Sabah merdeka lebih banyak PTI kah?

Guru anak ku, di tingkatan 2, telah diberi tahu oleh cikgu nya bahawa kalau Sabah merdeka, lebih ramai PTI, pendatang tanpa izin. Yang pasti adalah, sekarang sewaktu Sabah dalam Malaysia, sudah pun banyak PTI, jadi macam mana boleh lebih ramai kalau Sabah merdeka?

Kalau dalam Malaysia pasti kurangkah PTI atau bertambah lagi kah? Sudah berapa tahun aduan dibuat tentang PTI, masih juga masaalah ini tidak berkurangan, malah bertambah tambah lagi. Kalau Sabah merdeka, apa macam pula boleh lebih ramai? Paling teruk pun, sama sama ramailah.

Kalau ditengok negara jiran yang merdeka macam Singapure dan Brunei, mereka tidak mempunya masaalah PTI yang ketara macam diSabah. Di Sarawak pun tidak begitu bermasaalah sebab di Sarawak mereka mengawal Jabatan Imigresen mereka dengan ketat. Bukan diSabah, sesiapa pun boleh masuk. Pemeriksaan nampak macam dibuat di Kota Kinabalu, tetapi, langsung tidak ada di Labuan.

Ini adalah kenyataan, bukan khayalan seperti konon nya PTI di Sabah akan menjadi lebih ramai kalau Sabah merdeka. Dulu pun Sabah dibawah jajahan British tidak ada masaalah PTI. Masaalah PTI cuma timbul dengan teruk semasa Malaysia. Orang orang bugis yang batu datang ke Sabah, diberi IC kad merah, bukannya diberi kad biru sama taraf dengan orang tempatan. Orang yang tidak ada pas tidak dibenarkan masuk. Waktu itu, orang Sabah yang memegang semua jawatan kerajaan kecuali jawatan jawatan paling tinggi. Jadi bagaiman pula kalau orang Sabah yang memerintah seperti zaman British pula, lebih ramai PTI?

Waktu Malaysia, hampir kesemua jawatan jawatan dipegang oleh orang Malaya dari ketua sampai ke office boy, walaupun jelas didalam perjanjian Malaysia bahawa semua jawatan mesti diambil oleh orang Sabah. Namun janji tinggal janji. Orang Sabah pula, tidak mahu bising. Asalkan mereka masih boleh cari makan, walaupun jadi buruh kasar tidak apa lah. Yang penting dapat makan dan tidak kacau, itu pun sudah cukup berterima kasih. Yang malang pula, terpaksa kerja diSingapure atau Malaysa, dan ada yang jadi pengemis mencari makanan di tong tong sampah. Ramai yang jadi pelacur dan penagih dadah. Apa tidak, kalau tahap kemiskinan Sabah adalah jauh betul yang paling tinggi di Malaysia, bayangkan diKelantan 5%, di Sabah 20%, ini pada tahun 2009. Pada tahun 2006, 23%. Konon janji pada tahun 1994, kemiskinan dihapuskan dalam masa 100 hari. Anwar sendiri yang janji tetapi lepas itu, dia dibuang kerja pula. Sekarang Anwar pula yang disalahkan.

Puncanya senang saja. Kalau orang Malaya yang bertugas, buat apa dia kerja bersungguh sungguh. Kalau PTI masuk, apa kena mengena dengan dia. Dia akan balik ke kampung mereka diseberang lautan. Mereka boleh buat sesuka hati mereka di Sabah, dan kalau ada masaalah, boleh balik kampung lah. Tidak ada orang kampung yang kenal kepada mereka. Orang Sabah, lainlah. Kalau buat tidak senonoh, seluruh keluarga dan rakan akan tahu.

Orang Malaya ini pula berfikiran bahawa kalau PTI masuk ke Sabah kampung mereka masih selamat sebab jauh dari Sabah. Lagipun, mereka bukan dapat camkan diantara orang Sabah dengan PTI. Kepada mereka, sama saja. Bahasa sama, muka sama, adat pun lebih kurang sama. Tapi orang Sabah tahu. Macam lah orang Melayu Patani dengan Kelantan. Sebab itulah setelah PTI ini masuk, mereka akan lari ke Malaya. Disana mereka dianggap oleh orang Malaysia sebagai orang Sabah. Sekarang masaalah PTI sudah sampai ke Malaya. Semua rakyat Malaysia akan menanggung masaalah PTI ini.

Ini semua gara gara perjanjian Malaysia tidak dipatuhi. Jangan salahkah rasuah. Salahkan nilai penipu dan pembohong. Memang tidak selamat didunia dan akhirat akhirnya.

Real Heros of Sabah

These 6 businessmen are the real heroes of Sabah. I don't count myself as a hero in fact. We are all cowards and don't want to fight for our rights. How should we look at  our leaders who have allowed our riches going out of Sabah so much that Sabah is the poorest in the world, not just in Malaysia. This is unimaginable.
Bid to nullify the oil royalty deal
Published on: Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Kota Kinabalu: Six Sabahan businessmen filed a suit at the High Court here, Tuesday, seeking to declare the Petroleum Agreement between the Sabah State Government and Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) signed on June 14, 1976 ultra vires as well as null and void.
Lahirul Latigu (first plaintiff), Mohd Julpikar Ab Mijan (second plaintiff), Zainal Ajamain (third plaintiff), Joseph Wilfred (fourth plaintiff), Duli @ Dullie Mari @ Marie (fifth plaintiff) and Michael Peter Govind @ Mike Govind (sixth plaintiff) named Petroliam Nasional Berhad as the first defendant and the Sabah State Government as the second defendant.
The businessmen were also seeking a declaration that the Petroleum Development Act, in so far as it applies to the agreement dated June 14, 1976 between the first defendant and the second defendant is ultra vires null and void.
They are claiming for damages to be assessed, cost plus statutory interest and other relief deemed fit by the High Court.
In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs said the agreement was null and void and ultra vires to Article 74 of the Federal Constitution and the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.
"Furthermore the said agreement on 14th day of June 1976 is unenforceable by reason of the Petroleum Act 1974 being in contravention of Article 13 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia which states that no law shall provide for compulsory acquisition or the use of property without compensation," they said.
Thirdly, they said the agreement on June 14 June 1976 was executed by the executive arm of the State Government of Sabah without approval and consent of the State Legislative Assembly and is therefore ultra vires null and void.
"Fourthly, the said agreement dated the 14th day of June 1976 is merely a vesting deed and to date there is no agreement or contract between Petronas and the Sabah State Government in regard to the sharing and exploitation of the onshore and offshore resources of petroleum belonging to the state of Sabah. In consequence thereof, the said agreement is ultra vires null and void.
Fifthly, the plaintiffs said the vesting of petroleum resources of Sabah under the said agreement dated 14th day of June 1976 by the Sabah State Government into the hands Petronas by which is neither the executive or legislative part of the Federal Government of Malaysia but merely a company incorporated under the Company's Act 1965 is ultra vires null and void.
The plaintiffs also said Pakatan Rakyat's pledge on oil justice that it would raise to 20 per cent the oil royalty for Sabah and Sarawak once it formed the Federal Government as stated in its recent Kuching Declaration if brought into effect would be unlawful ultra vires null and void against Article 74 of the Federal Constitution and the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.
Under the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, the Federal have powers except over permits and licenses under State rights, the Federal Government has rights over development of mineral resources, mines, mining, minerals and mineral ores, oils and oil-fields, petroleum products, safety in mines and oilfields.
The Ninth Schedule also stated the following matters to fall in State hands: "Land: Schedule 9 List II, Para 2(a). Under the interpretation Acts, 1948 and 1967, Section 3, land includes "the surface of the earthÉall substances thereinÉall vegetation and other natural productsÉwhether on or below the surfaceÉand land covered by water".
"The territorial waters of Kelantan will come within the definition of "land covered by water". Territorial waters are defined by section 4(2) of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No 7, 1969."
"In addition to the income from land, one notes that in Article 110(3a) there is provision for discretionary payment on such terms and conditions as maybe prescribed by or under federal law of the export duty on "mineral oils" produced in the state. Petroleum comes within the meaning of "mineral oils" under Section 10 of the Petroleum Development Act."
In addition to the right of the states, Sabah and Sarawak enjoy some special sources of revenue, which is stated under Schedule 10, Part IV, Paragraph One that assigned import duty and excise duty on petroleum products to Sabah and Sarawak as well as Schedule 10, Part V, Paragraph Three that assigned royalty and export duty on "mineral oils" totalling 10 per cent to Sabah and Sarawak.
"Petroleum", as defined in the Petroleum Development Act, falls within the meaning of "mineral oils" and, therefore, 10 per cent combined royalty and export duty on it constitutes part of the guaranteed revenue for Sabah and Sarawak, the plaintiffs said.
"Furthermore the said Declaration in so far as petrol justice is concerned is unenforceable by reason of being in contravention of Article 13 (2) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia which states that no law shall provide for compulsory acquisition or the use of property without compensation.
"The said Declaration fails to recognise that the State of Sabah is entitled to one hundred per cent of the proceeds and income from the extraction of petroleum offshore and onshore of Sabah waters," they said.
The plaintiffs also referred to news reports by local politicians and national leaders that Sabah has the potential of becoming the biggest oil and gas producer not only in Malaysia but in the South East Asia region with potential of producing one million barrels a day.
"The estimated reserves from the present Sabah oilfields is 1.4 billion barrels of oil and 7.7 trillion scf of gas."
Sabah politicians, they said had also been calling for a relook of the 1976 Petroleum Agreement.
The plaintiffs also referred to a media report in November 2011, which reported Petronas discovering substantial oil reserves offshore of Sabah, which is at Wakid-1 well, about 100km northwest of the State Capital.
Meanwhile, Zainal, who was the spokeperson of the plaintiffs, when met by reporters after filing the suit through counsel Marcel Jude, said: "It is illegal for the Federal government to take our oil, all 100 per cent of it belongs to the people of Sabah, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 is very clear on this."
He said they are contending that the 1976 agreement is in conflict with the Federal Constitution which for the last 36 years successive State government failed to address.

Friday, September 21, 2012

Malaysia Agreement was not violated?

This columinist is just a government propagandist. He does not even read a single word of the agreement and just rely on government propaganda to make his comments.

The agreement clearly stipulate that ALL government posts must be held by Sabahans. And the State government must ensure that this is the case. In other words, the State governments of Sabah and Sarawak are also liable if they violate this condition. The state governments of Sabah and Sarawak cannot give away any of the rights enshrined by the Malaysia Agreement, let alone an acting chief minister of Sabah.

If this is not a violation, what is?

As for the immigration act, supposedly upheld by the courts, it was nothign but a show of face. The director of immigration is not a Sabahan, and the law is now tied to a Federal government's wish and fancy, all in violations of the Malaysia Agreement that accords Sabah full control over Immigration, not one that is managed by a Malayan, staffed by Malayans, laws passed by Malayans. By violating this right, both the State government of Sabah and Federal Government of Malaysia have violated this agreement.

The result is very clear for all to see, Sabah has gone to the stone age, among the poorest in the whole world, with 20% poverty rate, much higher than Perlis at 6%. Even Ivory coast of Africa cannot be that much higher but Ivory coast is much more well developed than Sabah, judging from the conditons of its roads and bridges.

Email    Print
21 September 2012 | last updated at 12:12AM
Malaysia Agreement stands the test of time
By John Teo | 0 comments

SABAH, SARAWAK RIGHTS UPHELD: Calls for review of its 20 provisions premature

John TeoIT must be just happy coincidence that as Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was talking about the state-federal partnership during Malaysia Day celebrations in Bintulu, the same theme of partnership was bandied about in Kuching by the opposition.

The prime minister was expounding on partnership as a fact over the last 49 years since the Malaysia Agreement was inked. The Malaysia Agreement was forged on the basis of a federal arrangement whereby the state and federal governments each has a clearly defined set of responsibilities, with certain overlapping responsibilities coming under a concurrent list.

The Agreement was freely entered into by the expanded nation's founding fathers. It has withstood the test of time, despite some clamour by some quarters from time to time for a vaguely defined "review" of points in the Agreement.

Any call for a "review" may suggest some unhappiness over the terms of the Agreement but unless it is clearly spelt out if any dissatisfaction actually arises out of some breach or contravention of the Agreement and any attempts at seeking redress having been tried and found wanting, any "review" is at best premature.

Whatever dissatisfaction there may be over the so-called 20 points of the Malaysia Agreement in the case of Sabah and 18 points in Sarawak's case has not really amounted to any solid basis for a legal challenge over any breach or contravention of the Agreement so far.

In fact, Sarawak has recently just got another reaffirmation of the state's rights when a legal challenge to its barring of a citizen from Peninsular Malaysia from entering the state filed in a court in the peninsula was thrown out for lack of competent jurisdiction by the said court.

Another persistent matter of contention in Sabah and Sarawak has been over the five per cent petroleum royalty that each state receives from Petronas. Again, it must be recalled that the five per cent quantum was something freely and readily agreed to between Sarawak and the Federal Government after extensive negotiations. The Sabah government quickly followed in signing a similar agreement thereafter.

If anyone should find fault with these particular agreements now, any blame must fall at least equally between the Federal Government and either state government unless it can be shown that the state or federal authorities then put pressure to bear on the other party to sign a pre-drafted agreement.

The first recourse for anyone in either state must be to hold the state government to account and justify the basis for signing the agreement. Partnership, after all, must be a two-way street if it is to mean anything at all.

Indeed, the record thus far would suggest that the Federal Government has usually bent over backwards to accommodate the expectations and demands of the people in both Sabah and Sarawak. Najib brought up the concrete examples of how he readily approved the setting up of a university each in Kuching and Miri while education minister and now a university for Sibu has also been approved. All these universities had been state initiatives.

Yet another loaded accusation has been a complaint that the autonomy enjoyed by both Sabah and Sarawak has somehow been eroded over time. General ignorance may be more at fault here, such as when even senior state officials mistakenly assume Islam to be the official religion for the entire country when constitutional provisions excluding Sabah and Sarawak from having any official religion remain in place.

Also, the imperative of national integration will naturally have taken its course after almost half a century of Malaysia. This is largely for the greater good of the nation as a whole. But admittedly there will be some areas where the people in both Sabah and Sarawak quite firmly believe importing certain norms from the peninsula is unhealthy. Increasingly, even people in the peninsula realise as much and are actually advocating importing Sabah and Sarawak norms over to the peninsula.

It is therefore somewhat mystifying that instead of re-affirming and seeking to strengthen the provisions of the Malaysia Agreement, the opposition sees fit to draw up its so-called "Kuching Declaration" committing the opposition parties to some ill-defined "equal partnership" agreement between state and federal governments and promising that it is a legally-binding document that will stand up in court should a future opposition-led Federal Government not live up to its provisions.

Will someone enlighten us as to what precisely may be wrong with the Malaysia Agreement to warrant an "alternative" agreement now and why, if indeed the original Agreement has its shortcomings, nobody bothered to legally test those shortcomings and the few who actually did find fault find that they themselves come up short?

Read more: Malaysia Agreement stands the test of time - Columnist - New Straits Times


This blogspot is filled with Adsense links. These google advertising links can be useful but their uses are strictly governed. I earn cash if any of you click these links but if I or my close acquaintances click them, google is very harsh in permanently banning me. Please do not click these adverts unnecessarily.

Learn how to earn money by clicking the button below: