CARI Infonet

 Forgot password?
 Register

ADVERTISEMENT

View: 9577|Reply: 124

[Tempatan] The beginning of our legal battle with Petronas: Sarawak vs Petronas ( Come hell

  [Copy link]
Post time 10-10-2019 09:08 AM | Show all posts |Read mode
Edited by cmf_shalom at 15-1-2020 10:42 AM

KUCHING: State Legal Counsel Dato Sri JC Fong said Petronas, like other oil and gas companies operating in Sarawak, has no issue in paying the five per cent State Sales Tax (SST) on petroleum products but is being held back by the federal government’s silence on the matter.

“They came to us and asked us not to sue them. They said ‘OK’ to pay SST but they are waiting for the federal government to give them the instruction to pay,” he told a press conference here yesterday.

He said officials from Petronas had come to Sarawak to discuss the matter with him, the Controller of SST, State Planning Unit director and the State Attorney-General’s Chambers.


“We have told Petronas that they have three options in the effort to solve the problem since they said SST will affect the profit or dividend they can give to the federal government,” added Fong, who declined to reveal the three options offered to Petronas in the effort to solve the impasse.

“That is for Petronas to disclose.”

Fong said assuming Petronas was to pay RM3 billion in SST, the sum would only be nominal compared to the RM231 billion in taxes the federal government received from various schemes.



He said the federal government would not be sacrificing much just by paying RM3 billion compared to what it yielded for this year.

Assistant Minister in the Chief Minister’s Department Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali, who was also at the press conference, said Petronas officials had also met with Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Abang Johari Tun Openg and appeared to have no issue with the SST.

Sharifah Hasidah, who is in charge of Law, State-Federal Relations and Project Monitoring, also agreed with Fong that the RM3 billion in SST requested by Sarawak was ‘not extraordinary or unreasonable’.

Both Fong and Sharifah Hasidah mentioned that over the years, Sarawak had contributed a total of RM660 billion from the oil and gas sector to the federal government’s coffers.
This RM660 billion in toto did not include the RM40 billion per year from the profits of liquefied natural gas production in Sarawak, they said, adding the federal government’s action over the SST issue defeats the purpose of its Shared Prosperity Vision.

BP

Rate

1

View Rating Log

Reply

Use magic Report


ADVERTISEMENT


 Author| Post time 10-10-2019 09:09 AM | Show all posts
pecah rahsia, Rupanya Tun yang belum bagi kebenaran kepada Petronas untuk membayar cukai 5% kepada Kerajaan Sarawak
Reply

Use magic Report

 Author| Post time 10-10-2019 09:15 AM | Show all posts
Edited by cmf_shalom at 10-10-2019 09:24 AM

Dosa Taib kt rakyat Sarawak, sebab dia menyalah guna kuasa sebagai ketua menteri-monopoli perniagaan di Sarawak. perbuatan monopoli ini juga menyebabkan kekayaan melampau. Tapi Taib tak rampas hak rakyat Sarawak. Dia x songlap cukai kerajaan negeri. Dia x ambik rizab tunai Sarawak. Dia x songlap duit pembangunan...peruntukan mmg x cukupun... Taib cuma menghadkan persaingan sihat dalam perniagaan.

dengan kekayaan Taib, sepatutnya Sarawak boleh ada tambahan senarai 4,5 org jutawan...tp sebab monopoliti- 4,5 org jutawan tu x wujud...itu je kesalahan Taib yg aku nampak

Dosa Tun...hehehe..


Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 10-10-2019 09:22 AM | Show all posts
saman jek...tunggu apa lagi
tahun depan minyak naik gak
Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 10-10-2019 09:23 AM From the mobile phone | Show all posts
Samanlah pusat
Reply

Use magic Report

 Author| Post time 10-10-2019 09:32 AM | Show all posts
keengganan kerajaan pusat membayar cukai 5% juga bukti yang kerajaan pusat tidak menghormati MA63.

Jadi sekarang, sama ada Kerajaan Pusat  bayar 5% tu..atau jumpa dimahkamah berhubung kemungkaran mereka
Reply

Use magic Report

Follow Us
 Author| Post time 10-10-2019 09:34 AM | Show all posts
Edited by cmf_shalom at 10-10-2019 09:36 AM

Paling terkilan, pakar perlembagaan,Dr. shad seolah2 telah menjadi senjata Tun untuk menyerang sarawak.
Ada beberapa perkara -hanya petronas -Sarawak sahaja yang tau..Bagaimana pula beberapa perkara berbangkit diketuai oleh Dr. Shad, kalau bukan Tun yg menyampaikannya.

Dan sekarang..Dr. Shad tengah menyerang Sarawak dengan mempertikaikan hak sarawak dalam perkara berbangkit itu
Reply

Use magic Report

 Author| Post time 10-10-2019 09:37 AM | Show all posts
Aku sangat pelik, seorang pakar Perlembagaan boleh membagi komen yg agak merapu berdasarkan pengalaman aku dalam bidang tersebut
Reply

Use magic Report


ADVERTISEMENT


 Author| Post time 10-10-2019 09:39 AM | Show all posts
Edited by cmf_shalom at 10-10-2019 09:40 AM

Dan sememangnya, selama ini para intelektual malaya memang telah bersekongkol dengan kerajaan Persekutuan untuk menafikan hak Sabah/Sarawak dengan mecipta sejarah Malaysia versi Malaya.
Aku sangat pelik..banyak isu penting/fakta tentang penubuhan Malaysia lansung tidak disentuh/dbincangkan dalam mana-mana buku, jurnal, penerbitan Malaya.
Reply

Use magic Report

 Author| Post time 10-10-2019 10:27 PM | Show all posts
Patut la awal tahun tu hari...ada seruan suci, supaya sistem pentadbiran tanah di Malaysia sekarang yg tpecah kepada tiga,  iaitu Kanun Tanah Negara, Sarawak Land Code, Sabah Land Ordinance, dikompil dalam satu siri-untuk memudahkan rujukan katanya...hehe..



Kalau berdasarkan Perlembagaan, hal ehwal tanah yang merangkumi undang-undang, pentadbiran, sistem, sumber dari tanah, termasuj hutan dan mineral, cukai-cukai berkaitan adalah bawah bidang kuasa negeri.

Tapi, atas faktor keseragaman, Kanun Tanah Negara diperkenalkan pada 1966 yg diguna pakai diseluruh malaya, sementara kanun tanah negeri masing-masing dibatalkan.

Pada masa ini, hal ehwal pentabiran tanah masih lagi kuasa negeri tapi ada diantara yg sepatutnya menjadi hak negeri eg galian minyak dan gas diambil oleh Persekutuan. Ini termasuk cukai-cukai berkaitan.

Namun situasi adalah berbeza dengan sabah, sarawak. Pentadbiran tanah adalah kuasa mutlak negeri.

Jadi menang betul la, dalam Perlembagaan, hal ehwal petrolium bawah kuasa Persekutuan, bukan negeri. Tapi senario berbeza dengan sabah, sarawak.

Ambil contoh, dalam Perlembagaan, Kerajaan Persekutuan boleh mengambil tanah negeri bagi tujuan pembangunan-sama ada melalui pengambilan, pemberimilikan, rizab etc. Apabila dikeluarkan geran-tiada sekatan dan hak milik Persekutuan selama-lamanya. Itu yang dinyatakan dalam Perlembagaan.


Tapi, bila di Sarawak, Kerajaan Persekutuan kenal akur dengan pentadbiran tanah Sarawak. Geran tanah Persekutuan-semuanya diberi berstatus pajakan 99 tahun.Sekiranya kerajaan persekutuan bercadang untuk meminda pembangunan atas tapak-k.eg asal nak bina hopsital, tapi ditukar ganti antara KKM dengan KPM untuk dibina sekolah. Kalau di Malaya, Persekutuan boleh buat tanpa perlu merujuk kepada negeri. Tapi untuk Sarawak, kerajaan persekutuan kena dapatkan kebenaran.Sama juga, tanah Persekutuan di Sarawak-jika terbiar tidak digunakan, sarawak boleh ambil balik. Kat Malaya, negeri-negeri x boleh.

Jadi, sama juga kes bagi isu minyak dan gas.  Sarawak ada Land Code dan OMO yang dah wujud lebih awal dari Kanun Tanah Negara.

Kalau memang Persekutuan ada kuasa tersebut untuk Sabah, Sarawak, motif kerajaan Persekutuan menumpang akta Darurat  13 Mei agar PDA, Akta Pelantar Benua dipaksa untuk Sabah/Sarawak?

Sebenarnya terdapat gerakan untuk mengaktifkan Kanun Tanah Negara di Sarawak..

Patut la awal tahun tu hari ada seruan suci senang nak rujuk katanya heheh

Reply

Use magic Report

 Author| Post time 10-10-2019 10:31 PM | Show all posts
Edited by cmf_shalom at 10-10-2019 10:44 PM
cmf_shalom replied at 10-10-2019 10:27 PM
Patut la awal tahun tu hari...ada seruan suci, supaya sistem pentadbiran tanah di Malaysia sekarang  ...

Sampai sekarang, masih x percaya Prof Dr. Shad, pakar Perlembagaan-tidak memahami senario ini...


Seolah-olah Tun guna dia untuk menafikan hak Sabah, Sarawak.

Tapi sorry la Tun, hang hantar pakar Perlembagaan antara yg tbaik pun-if mengeluarkan kenyataan tidak betul pun...aku yg x pakar pun dapat menghidu kecelaruan tsebut

Or prof x tau..semua tanah federal di sarawk berstatus pajakan....dan tidak boleh ditukar guna tanpa perlu minta kebenaran?keadaan bbeza di malaya...kelebihan utk aku yg paham ketiga-tiga sistem yv bbeza ini..hehhe..
Reply

Use magic Report

 Author| Post time 10-10-2019 10:49 PM From the mobile phone | Show all posts
Selagi ada sarawak land code tu...selagi tu la petronas pun x leh buat apa.. Selama ni pun menumpang akta darurat 13 mei


Patut la awal tahun gu hari ada seruan suci kudus
Reply

Use magic Report

 Author| Post time 10-10-2019 10:56 PM From the mobile phone | Show all posts
Mcm yg aku selalu bebel la..x guna dok ulang kenyataan..semua hak sabh sarawak dlm ma63 telah dimasukkn perlembagaan...tp pada masa sama parlimen bila2 masa boleh meminda hak tsebut.spt yg blaku dengan negeri2 malaya...
Reply

Use magic Report

 Author| Post time 11-10-2019 10:20 AM | Show all posts
Introduction of state sales tax on petroleum

THE article captioned ‘Why the introduction of the Petroleum Sales Tax in Sarawak may not appeal to Everyone’ published in The Malaysian Reserve on Sept 30, 2019, contains a number of inaccurate statements relating to Sarawak's State constitutional rights to levy State Sales Tax (SST) on the sale of petroleum products, principally Liquefied Natural Gas, crude oil and condensates.


To begin with, the State Sales Tax Ordinance 1998 was passed pursuant to Article 95B(3) of the Federal Constitution.


This Article reads: “(3) The Legislature of the State of Sabah or Sarawak may also make laws for imposing sales tax, and any sales tax imposed by State law in the State of Sabah or Sarawak shall be deemed to be amongst the matters enumerated in the State List and not in the Federal List.”


Therefore, the State Legislature's constitutional authority to pass laws on SST is not dependent on Article 96 as contended in the Malaysian Reserve.

This right of the State to pass laws on SST was incorporated into the Federal Constitution pursuant to the recommendation in para 24(1) of Chapter III of the lnter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Report which is an Annexure to the Malaysia Agreement.


To question the State's right to levy SST (which is a revenue assigned to the State under Item 7 Part V of the Tenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution) is therefore a disguise to dishonour the Malaysia Agreement and what is expressly provided in the supreme law of the Nation as a source of revenue of Sarawak.


The exercise of a right so clearly enshrined in the Constitution should not be dependent upon the outcome of the current discussions on MA 63 which should be focussed on matters pertaining to the erosion or reclamation of those rights which Sarawak is legitimately entitled to, under MA 63.


Why SST by State Government?


The Chief Minister has repeatedly explained why SST needed to be imposed. The State needed this additional source to drive its development agenda.


It must be pointed out that according to publicly available data, from 1976 to 2017, the total revenues derived from the production and sale of oil and gas within Sarawak territory amounted to RM550 billion, of which only 5% or RM33 billion was paid to Sarawak. Sarawak has therefore contributed very significantly to federal coffers from its rich oil and gas resources since 1976.


All the natural gas derived from Sarawak was converted to LNG for export to Japan, Korea and Taiwan, earning very significant foreign exchange for the Malaysian Government. Hence, the imposition of SST on petroleum products is a discharge of the State Government's fiduciary duty to Sarawakians to seek a fairer share of the revenues from oil and gas produced in Sarawak.


Based on the present production rate of oil and gas in Sarawak and at current global oil prices, the amount is RM40 billion annually. The SST will yield approximately RM3 billion additional revenues for the State.


After all these years of contributing billions of ringgit to federal Treasury from the State's petroleum resources, what is the basis for the Minister of Finance, Lim Guan Eng, to say (as reported in Malaysian Reserve) that the State's imposition of SST to yield additional revenue to the State of RM 3 billion is unreasonable.


With regard to alleged loss of investor confidence in the Oil and gas industry in Sarawak due to imposition of SST, it must be pointed out that "trade, commerce and industry" are matters under the federal portfolio (Federal List).


lf the Federal Government feels it is unable to sustain investor interest and confidence in the oil and gas industry in Sarawak, because industry players, including Petronas, has to pay annually RM3 billon of SST, the Federal Government should consider seriously allowing the State to regulate fully the industry under its Oil Mining Ordinance and Distribution of Gas Ordinance.


The State Government is very confident that it is able to sustain investor confidence, whether short or long term, in the oil and gas industry in Sarawak. This is amply demonstrated by the fact that foreign oil companies operating in Sarawak such as Shell, Murphy Oil, Pertamina, etc, have paid the SST assessed up to date. Only Petronas has yet to pay.

The author is assistant minister in the Sarawak Chief Minister's Department in charge of law, state-federal relations and project monitoring




Reply

Use magic Report

 Author| Post time 11-10-2019 10:29 AM | Show all posts
Edited by cmf_shalom at 11-10-2019 10:53 AM
cmf_shalom replied at 11-10-2019 10:20 AM
Introduction of state sales tax on petroleum

THE article captioned ‘Why the introduction of the  ...

Inilah mesej yang cuba aku sampaikan.

Aku tidak tahu apa perjanjian negeri-negeri Malaya dengan Kerajaan Persekutuan  untuk membaca dan mentafsir Perlembagaan. Tapi untuk Perjanjian Malaysia 1963, pendekatan yang diambil oleh Prof. Shad untuk menafikan hak Sabah/Sarawak agak mengelirukan, apatah lagi beliau seorang pakar Perlembagaan.

Prof Shad tidak boleh bagitau sabah/sarawak, hal ehwal perlombongan mineral tmasuk minyak dan gas, pengeuaran produxt petrolium adalah dalam senarai Persekutuan, maka, keputusan:

Malaya 1, Sabah/Sarawak=0

Itu bukan cara yang betul untuk kes Sabah/Sarawak.


Perlembagaan tu adalah penyataan umum dan bukannya buku teknikal yang memperincikan segala hal

Walaupun hak tersebut adalah hak Persekutuan seperti tcatat secara terang dalam Perlembagaan, tapi jangan lupa Sarawak ada Sarawak Land Code dan OMO yang wujud lebih awal dari Kanun Tanah Negara dan Perlembagaan Persekutuan itu sendiri.

Land Code dan OMO tsebut adalah hak Sarawak, dan tidak terbatal bila masuk Malaysia.

aku perasan, kerajaan Persekutuan cuba memasuk unsur Kanun Tanah Negara bila berurusan dengan Sarawak...Darilah PDA, cukai dan intepretasi serta undang-undang/peraturan

Tapi aku boleh sahkan,kesemua undang/peraturan dari perundangan tanah malaya yang cuba dilaksanakan di Sarawak-semuanya tengah bergentangan di pintu imigresen Sarawak.

Nak masuk x  dpt..nak balik ke Putrajaya, nanti tuan marah
Reply

Use magic Report

 Author| Post time 11-10-2019 10:35 AM | Show all posts
Edited by cmf_shalom at 11-10-2019 10:39 AM
cmf_shalom replied at 11-10-2019 10:29 AM
Inilah mesej yang cuba aku sampaikan.

Aku tidak tahu apa perjanjian negeri-negeri Malaya dengan ...

Paham kenapa Tun perkenalkan konsep kesatuan Malaysia? Paham kenapa anak Tun cakap dalam Parlimen, imigresen Sarawak/Sabah tidak sesuai untuk keharmonian Malaysia?


Terang bunderang sangat dah tu...

Paham kenapa Menteri Persekutuan tiba-tiba kemuka idea bijak kompil ketiga-tiga perundangan tanah: Kanun Tanah Negara, Sarawak Land Code, Sabah Land, disatukan dalam satu buku untuk memudahkan rujukan?

Patut la Shalom masa tu, belum sempat nk cebok dah meroyan di CI.
Reply

Use magic Report


ADVERTISEMENT


Post time 11-10-2019 10:37 AM From the mobile phone | Show all posts
semenanjung jajah sabah sarawak selalu
Reply

Use magic Report

 Author| Post time 11-10-2019 10:43 AM | Show all posts
aku juga dapat rasakan, gerakan mengkambing hitam kan kejahatan TAaib Mahmud-adalah kempen Malaya untuk memberi persepsi kuasa autonomi Sarawak itu tidak sesuai, maka harus diselaraskan dengan semua negeri lain.


Reply

Use magic Report

 Author| Post time 11-10-2019 10:46 AM | Show all posts
Tun,

Ni dah tahun 2019-xde teknik baru lagi nak pakai ka?

Asyik ulang teknik 70an-80an, 90an-time tu boleh la tipu...masih gigih duduk atas pokok lagi...paling aku pakar pun sumpit babi.
Ni, tahun 2019-umat cawat dah reti berforum kt CI
Reply

Use magic Report

 Author| Post time 11-10-2019 10:50 AM | Show all posts
Aku mulai sekarang, boleh sahkan-semua pakar perundangan Malaysia, pakar sejarah Malaysia tu-mereka cuma pakar sejarah Malaya dan Pakar Perundangan Tanah Malaya saja pun.

Sebab itu dari dulu, aku agak heran bila baca artikel prof. Shad pasal kuasa sabah, sarawak
Reply

Use magic Report

You have to log in before you can reply Login | Register

Points Rules

 

ADVERTISEMENT



 

ADVERTISEMENT


 


ADVERTISEMENT
Follow Us

ADVERTISEMENT


Mobile|Archiver|Mobile*default|About Us|CARI Infonet

28-3-2024 07:53 PM GMT+8 , Processed in 0.359314 second(s), 51 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

Copyright © 2001-2021, Tencent Cloud.

Quick Reply To Top Return to the list