Malaysia-Indonesia Relations takes a dip

The danger of jingoism on both sides.

Sunday, 29 August 2010 

JAKARTA – Ugly demonstrations in front of the Malaysian embassy here by the People's Democratic Front (Bendera) on Monday have changed Malaysia-Indonesia ties.

The lobbing of faeces and burning of the Malaysian flag in protest of the arrest of Indonesian fisheries officals by Malaysian marine police in Riau on Aug 13 have hurt ties.

Kuala Lumpur insisted that the Indonesians had intruded into Malaysian waters and abducted Malaysian fishermen.

Jakarta, on the other hand, claimed that the Malaysian fishermen had encroached into Indonesian waters.

Manohara also raised the emotion of Indonesians.

While the situation in Malaysia is hotting up, the situation here has reached a serious level with calls on Indonesia to sever diplomatic ties.

Universiti Indonesia international relations senior lecturer Andi Widjojanto was among those who made the suggestion.

He called for downgrading of diplomatic ties with Malaysia if not sever them as a shock therapy.

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono who was blamed for not being firm said that the best solution was via talks but stressed that Indonesia would not compromise over its territory.

Susilo Saturday sent a letter to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak hoping that the problem would be settled amicably and that border talks would be continued.

Social activists who did not like close Malaysia-Indonesia ties were quick to seize the opportunity by harping on nationalism and blaming Susilo for acceding to Malaysia.

Politicians including Indonesian cabinet ministers were quick to blame Malaysia for the incident fanned by media reports that painted Malaysia as an arrogant nation.

Pressure prompted Indonesian Foreign Minister Dr Marty Natalegawa to send a diplomatic note to Malaysia protesting the incident claiming it occured in Indonesian territory.

Indonesia based this on a 2009 map while Malaysia was using a 1979 map.

Malaysia replied, insisting that it occured off Johor based on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982.

The Indonesian media used issues like mistreament of housemaids and Indonesians facing death sentences for drugs to sow hatred for Malaysia.

A poll by daily Republika on Aug 23 revealed that 3,607 respondents or 72.91% said Malaysia was the least friendly country compared to Australia, Singapore, Brunei and Philippines.

Malaysia too has problems in Indonesia where land on which the ambassador's residence is sitting on in Kemang, South Jakarta was seized by some people.

It took 12 years for the court to return the land although it is Jakarta's responsibility to protect foreign diplomats.

Some 48,000 hectares of oil palm plantation belonging to Sime Darby mostly in Kalimantan is to be auctioned while Petronas which invested in subsidised fuel was only given limited rights in Sumatra.

The meeting between Foreign Minister Anifah Aman and Dr Marty on Sept 6 in Kota Kinabalu to discuss border issues is a positive step.

Since the border dispute will not be settled in the near future, there is a possibility that such incidents will recur.

We hope that the mechanism in place and bilaterial ties will prove benefical to two countries involved in a love-hate relationaship.
In another development, Umno Youth has denied telling its members to react against the Bendera demonstrators who burned and spat on the Jalur Gamilang in front of the Malaysian embassy in Jakarta.

Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin was commenting on the arrest of two local men who tried to burn the Indonesian flag in front of the Indonesian embassy in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.

He said all Umno Youth members have been informed that the government did not wish for the issue to be prolonged.

He said Umno Youth's view on the issue had been conveyed to the parties concerned through a memorandum submitted to the Indonesian ambassador to Malaysia recently.

"What is happening there only involves a small group of people. We don't want to see this issue to be sensationalised and as it involves relations between the two countries," he said in Kuala Lumpur.

Malaysian Mirror

Privilege for Bumi Elite

Pehin Sri’s Mansion in Seattle: A Gift from Samling?

www.malaysiakini.com

Did logging giant Samling give a 100-year-old mansion in Seattle worth at least US$6.8 million (RM21 million) to Sarawak Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud’s family?

That’s the question asked by an anti-Abdul Taib website, Sarawak Report, in its latest series of explosive revelations.

The mansion was bought by California-based CSY Investments in 1991 through its subsidiary, WA Boylston Inc, and its ownership was allegedly transferred to Taib’s family a few years later for a nominal sum of US$1 (RM3.1).

According to Sarawak Report, CSY is the initials of CSY Investments president Chee Siew Yaw, who is son of Yaw Teck Seng, ranked by Forbes magazine as the 13th richest Malaysian along with eldest son, Yaw Chee Ming.

Teck Seng, 72, is founder of conglomerate Samling Global, which began its logging operation in the rainforests in Sarawak before moving overseas to Guyana, Russia and China.

Earlier this week, the Norwegian pension fund announced that it was divesting 16 million of its shares in Samling following the company’s “unethical” operations in Sarawak and Guyana, which has contributed to illegal logging and severe environmental damage.

Taib defends Samling

Yesterday, Abdul Taib had defended Samling, describing it as a “responsible” company. “Abdul Taib in his joint capacities as chief minister, finance minister and state planning and resources minister, has controlled the issuing of Sarawak’s timber licences for the past 30 years, leaving clear questions over his incentives for favouring such an ‘unethical’ company,” said Sarawak Report.

The two-storey mansion, originally built in 1910, sits on a gentle slope in the exclusive Boylston Avenue East neighbourhood, providing an excellent view of the Seattle skyline.

The building, which has six bathrooms and five bedrooms, has a full basement, a large patio, a built-in garage, a gazebo, a pond and a tennis court.

According to Sarawak Report, Taib acquired the sprawling mansion, whose compound is about half of a football field, in the mid-1990s.

“The property forms part of the family’s Sakti International Corporation, incorporated in California and currently managed by Hisham (Sean) Murray, the chief minister’s son-in-law,” it said.

Murray is husband of Jamilah, the eldest of four siblings in the Taib family. The couple owns the second most expensive house in Ottawa, Canada, worth RM28.3 million.

The Yaws and the Taibs

It is earlier reported that Canadian-based Sakti International owns an estimated US$80 million (RM258 million) in properties, including the Washington Fusion Centre – a maximum security building which houses the Seattle division of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and counter-terrorism unit.

The Sarawak Report said that the only official document on the transfer of the Seattle property was from the King County Land Registry in a quit-claim deed where CSY Investments gave up the mansion for US$1.

A quit-claim deed is a document by which one disclaims any interest one may have in a piece of property and passes that claim to another person.It sometimes used for transfers between family members, gifts, and the placing personal property into a business entity.

“Family portraits of the chief minister, his deceased wife and four sons and daughters as small children, adorn the elaborate rooms,” said Sarawak Report.

The website also mentioned a second property, “an equally gracious and prestigious mansion” has also found its way from the Yaws to the Taibs in Seattle.

The house, worth about US$2.85 million (RM9 million) at its peak value in 2008, has the “famously sought-after views over the city”.

Same or Not Same?

 

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Sama tapi tak serupa: Nie Ching vs Rosmah di surau

Malaysia Chronicle

Lick in to see some initial reaction on what some people, including the Malays, feel about the latest religious "scandal" stirred up by Umno, Utusan and Perkasa.

By Umnodokpakka Gawa

Kemana Melayu

Sakmongkol perihal DEB.

DEB dan keterunggulan orang Melayu

Apa yang sebenarnya, orang Melayu faham bila mereka bercakap mengenai DEB? Saya rasa faham mereka tidak lagi tertumpu sama ada orang Melayu menguasai 30% pegangan dalam syarikat yang di senarai, atau jenis jenis perniagaan tertentu ada 30% penyertaan Melayu. Saya rasa isiu nya lebih besar dari petanda petanda penyertaan dan penguasaan Melayu itu.

Yang utama lagi utama yang mereka faham ialah 'idea' yang di wakili oleh DEB. DEB bukan lagi di lihat hanya sebagai instrument kepada penguasaan dan penglibatan Melayu dalam ekonomi. DEB sudah merupakan lambang kepada kuasa orang Melayu. DEB sudah jadi lambang kepada keterunggulan bangsa Melayu itu sendiri. Betul, semua bangsa equal dalam Negara kita, tapi Melayu itu first among equals. Yang ini lama kelamaan kian terhakis.

Dan ia terhakis bukan lah sebab ianya terjadi dalam sehari dua. Ia mulai terhakis apabila pimpinan Melayu itu sendiri muncul dengan dasar yang bodoh dan dasar yang berkompromi secara berlebihan. Ia terjadi kerana pimpinan UMNO sendiri lemah dalam memantau pancaran kepada KETERUNGGULAN bangsa mereka sendiri.

Kita sudah bisu misalnya dalam penyertaan Melayu dalam syarikat swasta. Kita bisu dalam melihat pejajahan pemilikan bukan Melayu keatas tanah reseb Melayu misalnya. Kita bisu dan bersikap tidak ada apabila pemajuan sesuatu kawasan kurang penyertaan bangsa Melayu dan kita terlalu mudah percaya, bahawa unit unit Bumiputera dalam sesuatu kawasan yang di majukan, tidak ada 'takers'. Apa yang pelu di lakukan oleh cukong cukong ialah membiarkan tempoh bumiputera takers tamat, kemudian pergi ke jabatan kerajaan yang berwajib dan declare, tuan dan kawan( lebih kawan dari tuan) - tidak ada bumi buyers. Yang celaka nya, apa yang di lakukan oleh GLC Melayu- kalau orang Melayu secara sendirian belum mampu beli mengapa awak tidak beli dan pegang untuk orang Melayu.

Bila orang Melayu lihat kalimah Alllah sudah boleh di kompromi, bila orang Melayu lihat pelbagai konsesi di beri kepada bukan Melayu, bila orang Melayu melihat pimpinan politik Melayu sudah meminta sedekah ehsan dari bukan Melayu- kesemua nya ini menandakan KETERUNGGULAN bangsa Melayu sudah kian luntur. Ia terjadi demikian, pada sebahagian besar punca nya ialah kerana pimpinan Melayu sudah lemah.

DEB bukan lagi lambing kegagalan suatu model ekonomi- bahkan ianya sudah jadi lambnag kepada kehakisan Keterunggulan bangsa Melayu. Maka nya, penyuaraan organisasi seperti Perkasa misalnya ada desakan supaya Keterunggulan orang Melayu jangan di perjudikan. Kerajaan yang ada, mestilah sebuah keajaan yang menjaga kepentingan bangsa Melayu. Ertinya, yang di inginkan oleh orang Melayu sebenarnya ialah jaminan yang di istiharkan bahawa orang Melayu tidak di pinggirkan. Dan saya rasa selagi orang Melayu merupakan majority penduduk dan parti yang memerintah di kuasai oleh orang Melayu, ketuanan orag Melayu akan tetap mantap.

Maka tentu ada sebab mengapa Perkasa sangat lantang menyuarakan kepentingan orang Melayu. Saya rasa, keinginan Ibrahim Ali, ketua Perkasa mencari sautu wadah untuk kekal releven secara politik, sudah menjadi alasan yang terlalu lemah untuk di majukan sebagai penyebab mengapa perkasa menjadi popular.

Dan saya rasa, Perkasa, semakin hari menjadi indictment kepada 'resolve' pimpinan Najib sendiri. Perkasa sudah menajdi suatu wadah untuk sebahagian orang Melayu yang tidak yakin kepada kepimpinan Dato Najib memimpin bangsa Melayu bersuara dan bergerak. Berulang kali orang Melayu melihat terlalu banyak sangat kompromi yang di lakukan oleh Dato Najib. Seolah olah gambaran yang di baca oleh orang Melayu , ialah Najib memberi muka kepada bangsa bukan Melayu untuk mendapat pelbagai kelonggaran dan konsesi. Dan orang ramai melihat konsesi kepada bangsa lain di beri tanpa imbangan dalam bentuk konsesi kepada orang Melayu. Soal pemberian biasiswa contoh nya. Soal konsesi ekonomi misalnya.

Dan yang paling menjengkilkan orang Melayu ialah konsep 1 Maalysia yang di majukan oleh Najib. Apa benda nya ini? Bagaimana konsep ini mahu di realisasikan dalam iklim orang Melayu masih ketingalan dalam pebagai cabang kehidupan? Yang miskin lebih ramai orang melayu, yang susah lebih ramai orang Melayu, yang kurang berpelajaran lebih ramai bangsa Melayu. Yang orang Melayu ada , kurang dari bangsa lain- perumahan, perniagaan, premis perniagaan.

Apa yang orang Melayu mahu, bukan suatu konsep yang 'nebulous' tapi suatu program bagaimana mereka boleh memperolehi kemajuan material. Orang Melayu miskin, susah, belum berjaya dalam perniagaan, belum memiliki premis perniagaan dan belum mepunyai sumber penjanaan kekayaan- mereka tidak peduli sama ada Najib, Rosmah atau Rais Yatim mahu melalak sana sini, nyanyi sana sini mengenai satu Malaysia. Yang orang lihat ada 2 Malaysia- satu Malaysia untuk orang kaya dan pemimpin politik dengan kroni mereka dan satu lagi Malaysia untuk golongan yang kepingin. Yang ingin apa yang sudah di capai oleh golongan yang pertama tadi.

Read more...

Sakmongkol AK47

Patani Story

:: Articles ::

Commemorating the42nd Anniversary of PULO Establishment

On January 22, 1968 PULO was established at Mount Arafah by late Tengku Bira Kota Nila / Kabir Abdul Rahman with some Patani leading scholars then residing in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

And again, on the occasion of January 22, 2010, PULO reached its 42nd year of serving the Patani people. Reaching this middle age, PULO is just like a man with full of life experiences, living through a variety of life complexities with both success and setbacks which can be held as guidance for future’s glory and excellence.

PULO nowadays is already in a level of sufficient excitatory than ever before. All strategies that have been organized since the leadership election held eight months ago on June 2, 2009, has been proceeding smoothly and implemented according to schedule as set, with reasonable recorded success.

In conjunction with the commemoration of 42 years, PULO choose "Ummah Unity and Patani Freedom" as a theme of a direction to strengthen efforts for the achievement of the so called 5D strategy planning which has been successfully implemented.

One of these strategies which is the PULO’s main agenda, is to empower Patani national claims involving as many Patani liberation movements possible, i.e. working together towards putting Patani liberation movements in a high current momentum and a common effort to find a solution for the Patani issue with a broad, strong and comprehensive international support, an approach which is always blocked by the Thais at all time by various means, directly or indirectly.

Thailand considers Patani issue as its country's internal affairs which cannot be interfered with by any parties, regionally or internationally. The Pattani issue that Thailand is trying to expose is merely as issues of poverty, conflicts of interest, injustice etc. All are aimed at hiding the colonial issue and over the issue of robbing the rights and sovereignty of Patani Malay race. Instead, PULO and Patani liberation movements are ready to have regional or international parties as key player in moving forward peace process in Patani region, an attempt that Thailand is also trying to avoid for fear of becoming an international issue.

A mediator or third party is considered as noxious poison by Abhisit administration and Thailand, but as honey to Patani liberation movements. The reason is simply because when there are mediators involved, Thai awful things and behaviour will be disclosed and the rightful truth will be on Patani freedom fighters’ side. Therefore all blockade efforts taken by Thailand to restrict the role of mediation will fail because it will be their own death blow. The most feared is, if there be a room for independence demand and the Patani people treated fairly by the international community, especially after the end peace efforts, advantages will be on freedom fighters, with possibility of leading to fully independence.

In preventing such move, Thailand is putting much effort to do something even though how bitter it is for them. An opposition Pua Thai (For Thais) party suggested the idea of ‘Greater Patani’ (Maha nakhorn Pattani) plan, a model associated with the ancient history of glorious ancient Langkasukan Patani, the Abhisit government had in principle agreed in adjusting into a new political scenario because the idea was greeted warmly by the Patani people. This is the first time in the history of the Patani Malay uprising against Thai colonialism. The Patani people can speak out with so loud and bold in seminars and forums, on TV and newspapers’ coverage. Although it looks like it was uncontrollable but nevertheless it is still benefitting the Patani people, increasing morale among its community in a situation that is difficult to be easily prevented ever again. Patani has become a bargain issue for Thai politicians to gain votes.

This may be tolerated by the Abhisit government hoping it can absorb and eventually eliminate the independence claims striven by Patani liberation movements, meaning the Thai government neither need peace with freedom fighters nor the mediators on Patani issue as most people seem pleased with the new environment. Later, according to the Thai government, it needs just to invite people to sit down and discuss to establish the desired form of government by the people to leave the Patani liberation movements as desolation issue. This is the view that Abhisit government may have in mind.

But in reality it is actually not so. Those who welcomed the idea and model of ‘Greater Pattani’ or Patani Affairs Ministry (Tabuang) proposed by Matuphum (Motherland) party, are in fact the unsung Patani heroes (directly or indirectly affiliated with liberation movements) pending for any possible opportunity in any political space that exists in filling their nature of moving openly and lawfully where Patani freedom fighters do not have the opportunity to participate and for those that do not support this (open or underground nature), they will not be interested in ideas like these in the first place.

Year 2010 is the year that can be viewed as a new landscape where Patani liberation struggle is changing the face towards a more advantage to the Patani liberation movements that are active in all aspects. Close cooperation between them has made many things possible and never before this could be achieved. But it has already been carried out successfully. Perhaps the word BRN, PULO, BIPP or Mujahideen will not be necessarily mentioned again in the near future, instead, they could be merged and bore the name only as ‘the Patani Liberation Movement (PLM) or Gerakan Pembebasan Patani (GPP) and GPP will then be the only sole legitimate representative of the Patani Malay people.

Isu Perkauman di Bincang

Nazri: Jawatankuasa Kabinet bincang isu pengetua, surau ‘diserang’

August 28, 2010

KUALA KANGSAR, 28 Ogos — Jawatankuasa Kabinet Berkenaan Penguatkuasaan Undang-Undang yang bermesyuarat kelmarin telah menyentuh isu pengetua di Johor yang didakwa mengeluarkan kenyataan berbuat rasis dan kes surau di Seremban disimbah cat merah.
“Khamis lepas kami mengadakan mesyuarat yang kedua. Dalam mesyuarat ini kami memutuskan akan memantau kes-kes yang mempunyai kesan dalam perkembangan sosial, serta yang melibatkan kepentingan umum,” kata Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz (gambar) dipetik Bernama.
Beliau berkata antara isu yang dibincangkan dalam mesyuarat terbaru itu ialah kes berkaitan seorang pengetua sekolah di Johor yang didakwa mengeluarkan kenyataan berbaur perkauman dan tindakan empat remaja Cina menyimbah cat merah dan botol arak ke sebuah surau di Negeri Sembilan.
Kata beliau, mana-mana pihak atau individu yang mengeluarkan kenyataan menyentuh isu-isu berhubung sensitiviti kaum dan agama perlu bertanggungjawab dan menanggung akibat serta kesannya apabila ia dilaporkan kepada pihak berkuasa.
Jawatankuasa yang bermesyuarat sebulan sekali itu turut dianggotai Menteri Dalam Negeri Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, Menteri Penerangan, Komunikasi dan Kebudayaan Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim, Ketua Polis Negara Tan Sri Musa Hassan dan Peguam Negara Tan Sri Abdul Ghani Patail.
Beliau berkata, alasan mengatakan tindakan atau kenyataan yang diucapkan telah “disalah anggap” adalah sesuatu yang tidak boleh diterima.
“Ucapan yang penting ialah mengenai anggapan orang.
“Bila berucap, ucapan itu kena dijaga, jangan boleh disalahtafsirkan,” katanya kepada pemberita ketika ditemui selepas menyampaikan sumbangan Aidilfitri kepada 300 penerima dalam Parlimen Padang Rengas di Pusat Khidmat Masyarakat Barisan Nasional di Lubuk Merbau Merbau di sini.
Katanya, bagi memastikan isu-isu yang menyentuh perhubungan kaum tidak terus dimanipulasikan mana-mana pihak, kerajaan menerusi Jawatankuasa Kabinet Berkenaan Penguatkuasaan Undang-Undang akan memantau setiap isu yang berbangkit.
Menurutnya kerajaan tidak akan berkompromi dengan usaha pihak tertentu yang mahu memecahbelahkan perpaduan rakyat pelbagai kaum dalam negara.
“Kerajaan tidak boleh bertolak ansur dengan isu perkauman sama ada yang membabitkan golongan minoriti atau majoriti, saya akan pastikan jika ada laporan polis dibuat dan selepas disiasat, ia akan diserahkan kepada Peguam Negara.
“Saya akan pantau, kalau ada kes mesti didakwa dan pendakwaan mesti cepat,” katanya.
Ditanya persepsi orang ramai bahawa kerajaan hanya bertindak tegas terhadap kes yang membabitkan kaum tertentu sahaja, Nazri berkata ia tidak benar, kerana tindakan yang diambil berdasarkan kepada kesalahan yang dilakukan tanpa mengira kaum.
MI

Perbelanjaan Pertahanan

Apa pula kos sepuluh ringgit ini, Kementerian Pertahanan?

Columnists

Written by Faisal Mustaffa

Tuesday, 24 August 2010 18:53

Rancangan Malaysia Ke-10 (RMK10) ialah dokumen yang setebal 449 mukasurat dibentangkan baru-baru ini yang merangkumi pembangunan semua sektor negara, termasuk keselamatan. Akan tetapi apa yang menghairankan, ianya tidak langsung menyentuh perbelanjaan bagi pembangunan dan keupayaan pertahanan. Berdasarkan maklumat am yang dikeluarkan, umum mengetahui bahawa sektor keselamatan diberikan 10% dari RM230 bilion peruntukan rancangan pembangunan lima tahun tersebut. Aku mengambil masa yang agak panjang untuk meneliti ucapan Perdana Menteri Jun lalu demi mencari butiran daripada jumlah tersebut, berapakah peruntukan dalam bidang pertahanan dan juga pecahan peruntukan kepada polis, Agensi Penguatkuasa Maritim dan angkatan tentera? Terkejut aku pada 22 Julai apabila Timbalan Menteri Pertahanan Abdul Latiff Ahmad memberitahu Dewan Negara bahawa perkara berkenaan masih dalam pertimbangan Unit Perancang Ekonomi. Adakah Kementerian Pertahanan mengambil masa bulan madu (sebut: ‘own sweet time’) mereka dalam merekodkan peruntukan bagi perbelanjaan lima tahun? Banyak perkara yang meragukan berlaku di dalam pentadbiran Kementerian Pertahanan ini. Sebagai seorang rakyat Malaysia dan pembayar cukai, aku berminat untuk mengetahui saluran mana yang digunakan wang aku dari aspek pertahanan, terutama mengenai senarai perolehan kelengkapan yang sedang dan siap dilaksanakan serta untuk lima tahun depan. Kita bukannya menuntut diberitahu tentang spesifikasi atau atur gerak angkatan tentera tetapi bukankan rakyat Malaysia juga berhak untuk mengetahui latar belakang pembelian dan pembangunan kelengkapan? Maklumat rahsia Maklumat mengenai pembelian Vera-E Radar Pasif dan Omnipol, Republik Czech, misalnya, pernah dicatatkan dalam Laporan Tahunan Kementerian Pertahanan 2007 dan 2008. Laporan tersebut telah menyatakan projek timbal balas Vera-E sedang dipantau oleh kementerian. Ya, memang benar perolehan daripada projek yang berjumlah €17.6 juta (RM70 juta) ini digunakan untuk memenuhi keperluan pengawasan ruang angkasa negara secara berlapis. Tetapi, apakah kesudahannya? Pada Julai 2007, Timbalan Menteri Pertahanan sendiri mengumumkan pembelian cruise missile di Dewan Rakyat. Tetapi, sejak dari itu, ianya terus senyap dari sebarang pengumuman dalam mengemaskini. Apabila Timbalan Menteri sekarang diminta sekali lagi bagi menjelaskannya, ia telah menjadi maklumat rahsia. Apakah yang berlaku? Ia sepatutnya tidak tertakluk kepada Akta Rahsia Rasmi 1972( OSA) sekiranya ianya pernah dimaklumkan, terutamanya apabila ia menjadi sebahagian daripada ucapan Kementerian di dalam Parlimen. Dan ia sekarang menjadi rahsia? Kejadian yang sama juga berlaku apabila pada 31 Ogos 2007, sewaktu perarakan sambutan Hari Kemerdekaan, Kementerian Pertahanan telah – dengan bangganya – menayangkan peluru berpandu Taming Sari XK98 kepada khalayak ramai. Namun, menurut Abdul Latiff, Projek Penyelidikan dan Pembangunan Peluru Berpandu telah sekarang ini diklasifikasikan di bawah OSA. Oleh yang demikian, segala maklumat berkenaan projek ini tidak boleh diumumkan. Jadi, mengapakah ianya dulu dibawa sebagai sebahagian daripada perarakan Hari Merdeka? Pembelian ketenteraan adalah sebahagian daripada peruntukan awam dan perlu mendapat persetujuan Parlimen. Oleh itu, munasabah dan berpatutan untuk Ahli Parlimen membincangkan dan mengetahui latar belakang pembelian kelengkapan ketenteraan yang mahal ini. Kos pertahanan negara perlulah dipantau bagi mengelakkan sebarang penyelewengan selaras dengan prinsip-prinsip urustadbir baik ataupun ‘good governance’ dan meningkatkan lagi ketelusan kerajaan. Dibuat secara rawak Kerajaan mengumumkan pada April 20 tatkala Defence Services Asia 2010 yang ia akan membelanjakan RM8 bilion merangkumi RM400 juta bagi membangunkan kemudahan DefTech di Pekan. Ianya berupa kos penyelidikan R&D, integrasi, dan ujian. Namun angka tersebut tidaklah munasabah dan terlalu tinggi, di mana ini adalah perolehan terbesar dalam sejarah Malaysia. Jumlah tersebut dikatakan untuk memperoleh 250 buah kereta perisai dan pembawa anggota (‘armoured-wheeled vehicle’) AV8 dari syarikat DRB-Hicom Defense Technology Sdn Bhd (DefTech) dan FNSS supaya menggantikan semua kereta Condor dan Sibmas yang sudah usang. Ini bermaksud secara amnya setiap AV8 berkos RM31 juta. Mengikut kajian purata kosnya ialah USD2 juta atau USD3 juta, atau dalam ringgit ialah RM10 juta lebih. Persoalannya, mengapakah kereta perisai AV8 kita ini mahal, hampir dua kali ganda dari kosnya kalau berbanding luar negeri? Pihak kementerian juga tidak menjelaskan bagaimana RM8 bilion ini digunakan dalam pecahan kos R&D, ujian integrasi pembangunan infrastruktur, kos pembelian, harta intelek FNSS dan unit kos. Mengapakah perolehan ini adalah melalui ‘direct negotiation’? Mengapa bukan secara tender terbuka memandangkan ia menelan belanja wang yang begitu tinggi, manakala anggaran perbelanjaan mengurus 2010 telah menunjukkan penurunan dalam bidang latihan, logistik, operasi dan pengurusan? Benar sangkaan aku bahawa secara praktis, Malaysia memang tidak mengamalkan tender terbuka tetapi menyerahkannya kepada DefTech melalui surat niat (‘letter of intent’). Adakah cara ini benar-benar memberi kebebasan kepada sebuah pihak untuk meletakkan harga? Satu lagi, yang aku ingin berkongsi maklumat dengan orangramai (selepas aku meneliti anggaran perbelanjaan pembangunan). Dicatatkan di dalam Bajet 2010 bahawa yuran RM10 dikenakan untuk tiga perkhidmatan. Aku mula terfikir-fikir apakah yang dibeli dengan peruntukan sepuluh ringgit di dalam sebuah kementerian yang begitu penting, yakni pertahanan negara. Walaupun kurang masuk akal, apabila dikaji, RM10 ini sebenarnya adalah merupakan nilai untuk mewujud dan menandakan projek berkenaan. Akan tetapi, di dalam pelaksanaan projek tersebut, tambahan peruntukan boleh dilakukan dengan memindahkan peruntukan daripada peruntukan yang lain. CPI

Oil Royalty Issue

Monday, March 22, 2010

A Blast From The Past.....Was The Oil Royalty 5% Or 20%?

Is the Petroleum Development Act 1974 unconstitutional? Petronas doesn't answer to Parliament and is only answerable to the Prime Minister of the day-hence if my memory still serves me correctly the Prime Minister of the day is Najib Tun Razak.But 36 years ago,the time the Petroleum Act was enacted,the Prime Minister was Tun Abdul Razak (22th.Sept.1970-14th.Jan.1976), while Tun Hussein Onn serve as the Prime Minister from 14th.Jan.1976-16th.July.1981.

Ironically,call it just pure coincidence,we are now seeing off springs in a similar capacity.But today we're more keen to re-discover the events that took place in Sabah,which could have change the fate of Sabahans,especially when oil was actually first discovered in 1882.

On the morning of June 6th.1976 @10am,Sabah Chief Minister born as Donald Aloysius Marmaduke Stephens and ,later known as Tun Haji Mohammad Fuad Stephens boarded a Nomad Aircraft from Kota Kinabalu and bound for Labuan. Along with him on the flight were State Ministers Datuk Salleh Sulong, Chong Thien Vun, and Assistant Minister Darius Binion. The purpose was to welcome Malaysian Finance Minister Tengku Razaliegh Hamzah and Sarawak Chief Minister, Datuk Pattingi Hj.Abdul Rahman Yakub,who were visiting the oil refinery at Labuan.

On the 7th.June.1976,the visiting Finance Minister cum Petronas Founding Chairman, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah was scheduled to sign an Oil Agreement in Kota Kinabalu between the State Government of Sabah and Petronas. Unfortunately the signing ceremony never took place, not on the 7th.June.1976 anyway. The reason.... Chief Minister Donald Stephens, Salleh Sulong, Chong Thien Vun, Peter Mojuntin (the Golden Son of the Kadazans) along with 7 others perished in the controversial accident of the Nomad Aircraft carrying them on the 6th.June.1976, in Kota Kinabalu. That tragedy is also known as the DOUBLE SIX TRAGEDY or DOUBLE SIX CRASH.

The question lingering in the minds of Sabahans till this day is - was the final discussion prior to the signing of this Oil Agreement 5% or 20% ?? Will we ever know?


Catastrophically, after only eight days after the First Huguan Siou, Donald Stephens, perished in that controversial crash, and on the 14th.June.1976,the Government of Sabah signed an agreement with Petronas, granting it the right to extract oil and earn revenue from the territorial waters of Sabah in exchange for 5% in annual revenue as royalty.

Today, after 34 years, its questionable if National oil firm Petronas could be unlawful as its founding law was approved before it signed agreements with all the states, according to law professor Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi.

He also explained that according to the Malaysia Federal Agreement, land belongs to the states, which complicates the provision in the agreement surrendering control of petroleum found onshore under the Petroleum Development Act 1974.

“I think there are some aspects of the Petronas Act that is unconstitutional,”

Under the agreements signed in the mid-1970s all state governments were promised cash payment or royalty of five per cent for petroleum extracted onshore or offshore in return for surrendering their control of petroleum resources to the national oil company.

Shad also pointed out that the Act was passed before all the states had signed the agreement.

“The constitution says when you take somebody’s property you have to pay adequate compensation,” said Shad.

Federal powers:

In Schedule 9, List I of the Federal Constitution, the following topics are assigned to the Federal Government:

> Except as to State rights over permits and licenses, the Federal Government has rights over development of mineral resources, mines, mining, minerals and mineral ores, oils and oilfields, petroleum products, safety in mines and oilfields: Para 8(j).

> Gas and gas works, production and distribution of power and energy: Para 11(c).

> Foreign and extra-territorial jurisdiction: Para 1 (g).

> Treaties, agreements and conventions with other countries and all matters which bring the Federation into relations with any other country: Para 1(a) and 1(b).

Peninsular Malaysian States:

When it comes to Peninsular Malaysian States, the following matters 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 earth … all substances therein… all vegetation and other natural products… whether on or below the surface… and 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. Subject to some exceptions, they refer to three nautical miles.

> Revenue from lands: Schedule 10, Part III Para 2.

> 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.

Sabah & Sarawak:

In addition to the rights of other states, Sabah and Sarawak enjoy some special sources of revenue.

> Schedule 10, Part V, Para 1 assigns import duty and excise duty on petroleum products to Sabah and Sarawak.

> Schedule 10, Part V, Para 3 assigns royalty and export duty on “mineral oils” totaling 10% to Sabah and Sarawak. “Petroleum”, as defined in the Petroleum Development Act, falls within the meaning of “mineral oils” and, therefore, 10% combined royalty and export duty on it constitutes part of the guaranteed revenue for Sabah and Sarawak.

From the above, it follows that the constitutional right of Peninsular Malaysian states is confined to fees for permits and licences and for extraction of any petroleum that is derived from their land and territorial waters.

Anything beyond territorial waters, e.g. on the Continental Shelf, is entirely in federal hands. All gas is in federal hands.

Legally, the oil and gas belongs to the states. The only way the federal government can ‘steal’ this oil and gas would be to come out with a new law that allows them to do so. If not it would be illegal for the federal government to touch the oil and gas. It belonged 100% to the states.

And this new law or Act called the Petroleum Development Act 1974 allowed the federal government to unilaterally (note the word ‘unilaterally’ and not ‘bilaterally’) amend the terms of the Federal Agreement. Normally, it requires all the parties to the Agreement to agree to any amendments to that Agreement before it can be amended. In this case, only one party made the changes (unilaterally) and the other parties were forced to remain silent.

The Federal and State Government of Sabah have a whole load of explaining to do.Were there two sets of agreement - one dated on the 7th.June 1976 and the other 14th.June 1976? Was the oil royalty 5% or was it more?

Why didn't any of the Chief Ministers after Donald Stephens demand for more oil royalty for Sabah? Sabahans have been hoodwinked long enough and the time has come for Sabahans to demand what rightfully belongs to them.The State Government of Sabah has been silent and it's quite obvious,they will remain silent-hence a puppet government.If history could be reversed would Sabahans today enjoy a much higher oil royalty had the illustrious sons and freedom fighters of Sabah did not perished?

Interestingly,Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah has been invited and has agreed to deliver a talk and answer questions in relation to the petroluem issue on the 2nd.April.2010 @8pm at the KDCA Buiding in Penampang,Sabah.I would encourage all Sabahans to attend this event and probably listen to all the unanswered questions.

Posted by Ronnie Klassen at 9:43 AM 80 comments Links to this post