Posting from FaceBook

You all have got it terribly wrong when" the running expenditures in Sabah and Sarawak cannot be consider as Federal contribution when such running costs are to collect the revenue for the Federal Government and nothing to do with Sabah and Sarawak when 40% revenue is concerned. quote: "It is noted from the record that Sarawak contributions to the Federal coffers from 1981-2010 was RM101,167 million whereas the Federal expenditure in the State was RM76,639 million. This show that Sarawak was contributing RM24,528 million or RM24.5 billion net to the Federal Government for the period 1981-2010. " Isn't the oil from Sabah part and parcel of the revenue derived from sabah, and why only 5% rather than 40% gross? So PDA is illegal and constitutional void. It is also illegal for Federal Departments to come and collect revenue in Sabah and that is already a robbery, and why not let State Departments to collect the revenue and send over 60% of such revenue for 40 years? That would be a bit of autonomy. Now after 40 years, no records are kept for the revenue as far as Sabah is concerned and much revenue of big companies operating in Sabah pay their taxes direct to KL without any reference to Sabah portion,and so how to settle? If cannot settle, SPLIT loh. I also doubt if Petronas keeps proper account of its revenue from Sabah as much of the oil extracted is cheating too to avoid paying 5% royalty so far since 1976. No more delay and must settle all the outstanding issues in favour of Sabah in 2016. Peter Peter Sat 11:53pm Kimmie MA63 needs to be enforced or we are all stateless. Yamaha Melayu does not exist. Tanah 4:32am Also if State Departments in Sarawak collect on the Federal behalf, the staff would be wholly Sarawakians and not largely Federal officers take away the jobs meant for Sabahans and that is part and parcel of Borneoisation. ow it is another issue I had observed that when Federal officers are sent over to Sabah mostly a middle and senior levels and some even drivers come from Malaya, they cannot really perform as they have so many personal problems when the are re-located to Sabah like schools for their children and looking after their parents by remote control and the worst is they are not familiar with local customs and culture and not easily adopted to Sabah way of life (multi ethnic) and the other bigger problem is that sometimes or most time they are sent back to Malaya before they even get to the crux of the jobs in Sabah. Like senior officers in Malaya retire, such offices or positions could be filled by those officers sent to Sabah on sort of promotions and you call that serving nation especially Sabah. What about those with more than one wives largely in Malaya and serving in Sabah and find all the means to get back to them whenever chances arise... the list can go on serving themselves as well..... You may ask why RM100b (40% revenue). Simple RM2b per year and with compound interest it can be over RM100b easily. So why still blind searching by the non existing committee on 40%? Tell me why the RCI on illegal immigrants Sabah has gone silent mode, tell me why the special committee on 40% revenue also gone silent mode? Why esscom only defensive? why 2 submarines cannot dive and RM600m incurred to feed the foreigners drinking beer into the wee hours? Altantuya lives in the 2 submarines?? why so much profligacy in the nation and Sabah? RM600m annually. no more monkey business in 2016. How many times Sabah has been robbed by Malaya in this, Sabah did not get the 40% revenue, the officers come from Malaya representing the Federal Government as robbers getting all the big salaries and perks, then they charge it to Sabah for collection of Federal revenue, and then claim Malaya spends more money in Sabah then they get from Sabah..and so how many times we have been robbed??? Also all the big projects worth hundreds of billion ringgit all done in KL as the main contractors are likely UMNO robbers and what come to Sabah to the local contractors as sub-sub-sub and Sabahans and the illegal workers get pittance, and so how many times of robberies - bright day light...OK?OK?OK? Contracts in Sabah are jack up at least 5 times the real value to feed the UMNO robbers - national and state counterparts.

I am the first one to raise the 40%

B.A.2.4.16. Kuala Lumpur and London Talks on Malaysia- Agreement on Establishment of Federation by Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak, and Sabah The financial question s previously in dispute between Singapore and Malaya were settled in the following manner: (1) 60 per cent of the Federal revenue collected in Singapore would be paid to the Singapore Government and 40 per cent to the Federal Government: (2) to assist development in the Borneo territories, Singapore would make available to the Federal Government a 15-year loan of 100,000,000 Malayan dollars, free of interest for the first five years, and a 15-year loan of 50,000,000 Malayan dollars at current market rates in the Federation (i.e. 150,000,000 Malaya dollars in all or about £17,500,000). (Source: Keesing's Contemporary Archives- November 2-9, 1963) (Appendix C). Was the Sabah's portion fulfilled? Why the sharing proportion as with Simgapore not applied to Sabah? Was Article 8, on the Intergovernmental Committee recommendations fully complied? http://migs-sabah.blogspot.com/2007/06/submission-of-case-to-icc.html

no excuse not to pay ia.in the way of Formation of Malays

Unlikely entitlement still binding Published on: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 Email to a friend Printer Friendly Kota Kinabalu: Former Chief Minister Tan Sri Harris Salleh believes it is unlikely that the 40 per cent entitlement is still legally binding based on his association with both Federal and State governments during his 50 years of public life. "What may have transpired was that the payment of 40 per cent was based on any increase of revenue from the 1963 collection. And it may be that this provision is only limited to a period of 10 years from Malaysia Day. "This limitation is applicable to many provisions in the Federal Constitution including immigration power given to Sabah which was only valid until 1974 or 10 years," he said in a statement, Tuesday. According to Harris, there was a requirement that within 10 years from Malaysia Day there must be consultations between Federal and State Government as to whether to extend these provisions. "As far as I can recollect there was no consultation on the immigration provision. It is being carried on as nobody is prepared to stir the hornet's nest," he said. Harris said the 10th Schedule of the Federal Constitution was clearly written in simple English. In all fairness, there is no need for a committee to look into this issue since it was straight forward, he said. "Clause 2 of the 10th Schedule under Part IV ("Special Grants to States of Sabah and Sarawak") reads as follows: 2.(1) In the case of Sabah, a grant of amount in each year to two-fifths of the amount by which the net revenue derived by the Federation from Sabah exceeds the net revenue which would have been so derived in the year 1963 if —- (a) The Malaysian Act had been in operation in that year as in the year 1964; and (b) The net revenue for the year 1963 were calculated without regard to any alteration of any tax or fee made on or after Malaysia Day, ("Net revenue" meaning for this purpose the revenue which accrues to the Federation, less the amount received by the State in respect of assignments of the revenue). The only issues to be resolved here, he said, are: • Why the Federal Government stopped payment after 1974, i.e. 10 years after Malaysia Day, • Whether the 10th Schedule had been amended or revoked, • Whether the provision lapsed after 10 years of Malaysia Day, • If it can be ascertained that Sabah is entitled to the 40 per cent, what is the amount, and • What options does Sabah have if Sabahans think Sabah is entitled but the Federal Government thinks otherwise. Can Sabah sue the Federal Government? Once these issues are established one way or the other, then the normal course of action should take place. On the other hand, if Sabah's entitlement is beyond doubt legally, all that is needed is for the Sabah State secretary to write to the Chief Secretary of the Federal Government requesting for the payment of 40 per cent, backdated to 1975 for RM100 billion [estimated] – which is a lot of money for Sabah, he said. He said on the other hand if the 10th Schedule is no longer legally binding then it is only fair to inform the people of Sabah accordingly. "If it is still binding then all the 10 Chief Ministers including myself must be cursed by Sabahans for failing to claim Sabah's rights. If Sabahan politicians are unwilling to demand payment from the Federal Government, Sabah has some high powered civil servants like the Attorney General and Treasurer General," he said. Harris said the revelation at a Seminar on Public Diplomacy recently that the Federal Government is legally committed to pay Sabah 40 per cent of any revenue derived (collected) from Sabah from first day of the formation of Malaysia must be a "windfall from heaven" that will send Sabahans into the astrosphere of financial excitement. A delegation met the Prime Minister on July 15 on this issue, indicating the importance of the legal standing of the payment as specified in 10th Schedule of the Federal Constitution. "It was also mentioned that the Federal Government had stopped payment of 40 per cent in 1974. The 40 per cent payment has stopped for 40 years. Both the Federal and State Governments have not raised or discussed this payment. "No one has produced a reason for the action of the Federal Government to stop payment. Basing on the conclusion of the seminar and after 40 years it would appear that all the Chief Ministers from 1963 to the present day – a total of 10 Chief Ministers or State Governments must be either ignorant of the Federal Government's legal obligation to pay 40 per cent of the revenue generated in Sabah to Sabah. "Maybe these past Chief Ministers are simply not sufficiently conversant with the English Language," he said. Harris said with the exception of late Tun Mustapha, late Tun Said Keruak, Tun Sakaran Dandai and himself, all the other six Chief Ministers namely Tan Sri Joseph Pairin Kitingan, Datuk Osu Sukam, Datuk Seri Yong Teck Lee, Tan Sri Bernard Dompok, Tan Sri Chong Kah Kiat and Datuk Seri Musa Aman are highly qualified professionals like lawyers, economists and others. "Yong, who was an important member of the panel, did not produce a reason as to why he did not make the claim for payment of this 40 per cent when he was Chief Minister. "If indeed it is true that the Federal Government has to pay the 40 per cent to Sabah, why have these 10 Chief Ministers failed to demand payment? It is quite puzzling. "It is a lot of money that Sabah can receive under Schedule 10 of the Federal Constitution – Sabah could have received extra billions of Ringgit for our economic development," he said. The Seminar on Public Diplomacy organised by the Foreign Ministry with the Universiti Malaysia Sabah was attended by high profile people over two sessions. In the first session, constitutional lawyer, Edmond Bon claimed that Sabah is entitled to 40 per cent of the total revenue derived or collected by the Federal Government, which the Federal Government did not pay to Sabah for 40 years. But Harris said that one of Bon's glaring omissions was that he failed to mention items to be included in the calculation of the 40 per cent. In the second session, Bon had said that he had gathered eight lawyers to undertake a study and, if necessary, to claim and submit legally on the issue of 40 per cent of the revenue as enshrined in Schedule 10 of the Federal Constitution. This issue was then raised to the Prime Minister. The meeting with the Prime Minister included high power opposition personalities like Star Reform Party Chief Datuk Dr. Jeffery Kittingan, former PKR Tuaran Chief Ansari Abdullah, Zainal A Jamain, Secretary General of Parti Kerjasama Rakyat and Bon himself. It was reported that the Prime Minister agreed to form a special committee to study the issue as to whether Federal Government is legally committed to pay Sabah 40 per cent of the revenue it has collected. HARRIS said there was no need for a committee to look into the payment of 40 per cent, but a committee is required to review all aspects of the "marriage" between Sabah and Malaysia. He suggested that the committee look into the disparity of control among the 11 states. "There are many controls appearing only to have been imposed by Sabah and Sarawak over Malaysians coming from the other nine states. The people of Sabah can work, and Sabah lawyers can practise in the other nine states but Sabah does not reciprocate," he said. At the same UMS seminar, the rights of Sabah within the framework of the 20 points and the Malaysia Agreement were also brought up. "What has not been emphasised in the same seminar is the undisputed fact that the Malaysian Constitution is supreme. The Malaysian Constitution is the operating law that governs, among other things, the relationship between the Federal Government and State Governments, including Sabah. "If there is anything that Sabah is unhappy about, Sabah has 26 MPs who can bring the issues up to Parliament. When Malaysia came into existence, the Malaysian Parliament became supreme and takes precedence over the 20 points and/or the Malaysian agreement. The 20 points and Malaysia Agreements are not laws. "If Sabahans feel strongly that the Federal Government has shortchanged Sabah in anything under the 20 points or the Malaysian Agreement, our MPs should fight to protect our rights and for these to be incorporated into the Constitution or in an Act of Parliament. "Persistence in harping on any unhappiness under the 20 points or Malaysia Agreement will not be productive or help us. Our MPs, whom we have elected to represent us in Parliament as well as "protector of Sabah's rights", must fight and protect our interest in Parliament – this is the right venue to fight for our rights," Harris said. "Then there are also the continuous claims that Sabah has been shortchanged of Sabah's rights. So far the nine states never claim that over 300,000 Sabahans working in their states are taking away jobs from their people. 300,000 is quite a staggering figure. "This also proves that Sabahans prefer to work in these nine states rather than working in Sabah. "Why? Because they can enjoy many things that are better in the other states than working in Sabah, like better working conditions, higher salary and conducive living. "There may be more Sabahans seeking jobs in other states than other Malaysians working in Sabah," he said. On immigration, Harris said the Berjaya Government extended welcome to all Malaysians to Sabah to work or conduct businesses. "Has Sabah been overwhelmed by other Malaysians in the last 50 years? The answer is no. West Malaysians working or staying in Sabah up to the present time is only estimated to no more than 20,000. "These 20,000 are mostly "towkeys" or businessmen and professionals. They are not working as rubber tappers or lorry drivers depriving Sabahans of jobs," he said. A number of leaders are still expressing their unhappiness on Sabah Rights and Immigration but they forgot or simply chose to ignore that the other nine states within Malaysia also have their rights too. "Let it be known that some organisations and leaders in these nine states are now actively considering asking Parliament to give them same power as those given to Sabah and Sarawak on immigration. "If Parliament agrees to give them the power of immigration controls, this will mean that the 300,000 Sabahan workers must apply for work permits. This will cost money and time. "Nevertheless, if the nine states refuse to give work permits to the 300,000 Sabahans they have to come back to Sabah to seek for work. What employment can Sabah offer to these returning Sabahans?" he asked. Of course the "tit-for-tat" situation is unlikely to happen, he said, adding that the people of the other nine states will simply just accept whatever Sabahans say or action until such time when they became unbearable.

impossible to complete the computation of the amount

'Only amount the issue' Published on: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 Email to a friend Printer Friendly Kota Kinabalu: There is no dispute that the 40 per cent net revenue derived from Sabah is legally and constitutionally payable to the State under the Tenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, said Star Sabah Chief, Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan. "The only issue is what the actual amount payable to Sabah is?" he said. Dr Jeffrey who was among those present at the presentation of the Memorandum on the Special Grant and Additional Revenues assigned to Sabah under Parts IV and V of the Tenth Schedule, including the 40 per cent net revenue entitlement of Sabah to the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, last Wednesday, said: "Najib had agreed that if the payment was provided to be paid under the Federal Constitution then it should be honoured and paid to Sabah." In this respect, he said the State Government should take action to implement them and not beat about the bush trying to please their political masters in Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya as well as giving lip service that they supported the move. He said there were huge collections of revenue derived from Sabah by the Federal Government from companies and other entities that are not Sabah based but with profits derived from operations in Sabah. Among them were major oil plantation and other trading companies operating in Sabah but based in Malaya or Sarawak, he said, adding that the issue was highlighted in the Memorandum submitted to the Prime Minister. At the time of the formation of Malaysia in 1963, the Sabah leaders were magnanimous in agreeing to contribute 60 per cent of Sabah's revenues to the Federal Government in return for the assurances of development and security to be provided by the Federal government. However, whether development and security was provided to Sabah is a major bone of contention by most Sabahans. "Almost all genuine Sabahans agree that the Federal Government failed to provide development or security to Sabah. Even Najib has acknowledged that past leaders have not done enough for Sabah and Sarawak. "Given that the Federal Government had failed to provide the requisite development comparable to Malaya and if the matter is now brought before the constitutional court or court of law, it is likely that Sabah will be waived from contributing the 60 per cent," he said in a statement, Monday. In fairness and in the spirit of federalism, Dr Jeffrey who is also Bingkor Assemblyman said the Federal Government should immediately remit the 40 per cent entitlement starting in 2016 on those revenues that are not in dispute such as income tax, GST, customs duties and other collections by federal departments and agencies while efforts are made to compute the actual amount payable. At the same time, efforts should also be focused to determine the outstanding arrears and accrued interest on the 40 per cent entitlement that was not paid since 1974/1975. Also included in the Memorandum was the 10 per cent export duty on petroleum exported from Sabah to be assigned to Sabah in lieu of royalties and a revision of the import and excise duties on petroleum products currently fixed and grossly undervalued at RM120 million annually whereas consumption had risen to record levels of RM8.5 billion in 2013 and still increasing annually. On the other hand, Dr Jeffrey said the State Government could have acted through the National Finance Council (NFC) provided under Article 108 of the Federal Constitution in which Sabah is entitled to a permanent representative and required to meet at least once a year. The NFC was tasked with decisions on federal grants and assignment of revenues, he said, adding that this was another matter highlighted in the Memorandum given to Najib.

special committee

A Sabahan expected to lead the special committee on Sabah's claim: Anifah Aman 19 July 2015 @ 2:17 PM Kristy Inus kristy@nst.com.my KOTA KINABALU: The special committee to study on Sabah’s 40 percent entitlements of the net revenue collected by the Federal government is expected to be lead by a Sabahan with knowledge on the formation of Malaysia's history and the legality aspect of the Constitution. Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Anifah Aman without giving timeline specifics on when the committee will be set up, simply said they plan to do it as soon as possible but confirmed it will not be led by him. "I have no one in mind now but for the time being yes, (I will handle arrangements) ... I will see to it that the committee is set up and then we have to set the Terms of Reference (TOR) which has to be backed by the State. "This is my opinion, the committee has to be legally appointed by the government because whatever agreement the end of the day has been achieved (by the committee), the government has to honour," he said, adding that they will seek the opinion of the State Attorney-General Datuk Mariati Robert on the committee formation. Anifah said this when met at the Sabah state cabinet open house at Kota Kinabalu Sports Complex in Likas here. On Wednesday, Anifah in Putrajaya announced that Najib has agreed to the forming of the committee, which will study thoroughly several issues especially on the financial rights of the oil and gas royalty, which was last paid in 1974. Read More : http://www.nst.com.my/node/92585?d=1