Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Ansari tests PKR's sincerity
Fraud in Malaysian politics never-ending
Mere ‘fraud’ not consideration in 13th GE
No fidgeting, it’s back to Permatang Pauh
Sabah opposition’s tangled politics
Malaysia’s Oil Royalty Rumble
Why Are Uthaya and Hindraf Helping the Enemy?
The Battle of Election Manifesto (WITH CHINESE TRANSLATION)
PR & HINDRAF: The Missed Opportunity

Posted: 09 Apr 2013 03:46 PM PDT

PRE-EMPTIVE MOVE: State PKR leader names candidates early as a show of 'autonomy'

Ansari's move appears to pre-empt the likely possibility that incumbent Tuaran MP Datuk Seri Wilfred Bumburing and incumbent Beaufort MP Datuk Seri Lajim Ukin, who threw their weight behind the PKR last year, might have their own list of prefered candidates for the seven seats.

Joniston Bangkuai, NST

WHILE the Sabah Barisan Nasional (BN) is raring to face the 13th General Election as a united and cohesive team, the opposition appears to be fragmented despite their common objective of unseating the ruling coalition.

As it stands, the election is expected to see two opposition camps -- one comprising of peninsula-based parties and the other Sabah-based parties -- taking on the BN in the land below the wind.

This follows the failure of the loose coalition of opposition parties made up of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), DAP and Pas to reach a compromise with local-based Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) and the Sabah chapter of the State Reform Party (STAR) on a single candidate to fight BN in every seat.

After being rejected as "small parties without much support" by PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the Datuk Seri Yong Teck Lee-led SAPP and Sabah Star headed by political nomad Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan, have agreed in principle to cooperate in the election.

There is also a possibility of a fourth force made up of PKR leaders who will likely leave the party if their demands to be fielded as candidates are ignored by the PKR leadership.

State PKR stalwart Ansari Abdullah had last week announced the names of divisional leaders as candidates in seven parliamentary constituencies, contending that they have been working very hard for the party over the last five years.

Word has been making the rounds that Anwar had given Bumburing and Lajim the power to choose PKR candidates for several parliamentary and state seats as part of the deal for them to ditch the BN.

It is learnt that the seven parliamentary seats eyed by divisional leaders aligned to Ansari are said to be seats Bumburing and Lajim have asked to be given a say on who should be the candidate.

The seven included Ansari, who declared himself as the PKR candidate for the Tuaran parliamentary seat which Bumburing as its former MP hopes to defend.

Bumburing and Lajim are said to have started scouting for potential candidates long before they announced their decision to hop into the opposition.

Many PKR divisional leaders, who claimed to have been working very hard to strengthen the party at the grassroots level, had from the start feared that the alleged power given by Anwar to Bumburing and Lajim might mean they would be sidelined and not considered as candidates.

"I had sensed it from the beginning that Bumburing and Lajim's move to support Pakatan may throw a spanner in the works of the opposition's hope of making an impact in Sabah," said a PKR divisional leader who spoke on condition of anonymity.

When revealing the names of the seven proposed candidates, Ansari had boldly said that he expected Anwar and the party leadership of Pas and DAP to honour their commitment and assurance that matters involving Sabah will be decided by Sabahans.

"In line with the promise for autonomy (by Pakatan Rakyat leadership), we have taken the liberty to release the names of the seven candidates that have been picked by the respective divisions.

"This is a test of whether the Pakatan Rakyat party leadership is sincere in its promise to give us autonomy," Ansari said, claiming that the candidates have long been identified, as far back as two years ago.

Speculation is rife that Ansari and his group may either contest as independents or align themselves with SAPP if their demands are ignored by the PKR leadership.

As for the BN, it is all systems go in its quest to keep Sabah as the the ruling coalition's fixed-deposit, although it may face some tough challenges in several constituencies.

Fraud in Malaysian politics never-ending

Posted: 09 Apr 2013 01:21 PM PDT

If the 1987 Umno presidential election is taken as one yardstick, the response of the Court may not be in favour of a novel development of the law or, as some would allege, making law.

The Indians are united by Hindraf Makkal Sakthi, the Chinese are united by their bank drafts, and the Malays by their overdrafts. The makkal sakthi – people power in Tamil – cries of Interlok Pariah Umno is being heard again as the seatless Indians rail against the ruling party.

Joe Fernandez

In that party election, the Court discovered that votes from 30 illegal party branches may have contributed towards Mahathir Mohamad's narrow 43-vote victory over his challenger Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah. It was alleged that the 30 illegal branches were aligned towards Mahathir. Even so, in a surprising ruling, Judge Harun Hashim declared the entire party unlawful. Had the Judge concluded that the illegal votes may have gone in the direction of Razaleigh, that ruling would not have arisen since the outcome was not affected!

Harun Hashim bought kamikaze arguments and denied Razaleigh

The Court did not take into consideration that the presidential election was only unlawful to the extent of the illegal votes and the party unlawful to the extent of the illegal branches. The Jury may still be out on the question of whether the Judge could have discounted the illegal votes and handed the presidential victory to Razaleigh. Many will argue that he could have but unfortunately he didn't. The good judge has long gone to meet his maker. Dead men tell no tales.

Even if Mahathir had won by one vote, and it was determined that his victory was due to one illegal voter, the outcome had been affected. Both Mahathir and Razaleigh, the one illegal vote removed, had tied.

One mitigating circumstance against the party being declared unlawful was that it had helmed the country since independence for Malaya in 1957 and steered the birth of Malaysia in 1963.

That approach could not be misconstrued as judicial activism using the fig leaf that our system of justice is adversarial.

Alas, the Judge bought the kamikaze arguments in Court that he had no alternative but declare the entire party unlawful if the Court concluded that illegal branches had participated in the presidential elections and illegal votes had also been counted. Again, the Court is not about the truth, justice or moral values but the law, no matter how much weighted against the public interest.

Court no help in awarding victory to the real polls winners

In another case, on 8 June, 2001 Election Court Justice Muhammad Kamil Awang made a landmark decision declaring the March 13, 1999, Likas election result null and void after upholding two election petitions filed by losing PBS candidate Dr Chong En Leong and former Chief Minister Harris Salleh of Parti Bersekutu. Justice Kamil had affirmed that the Likas electoral roll was tainted with more than 5,000 phantom voters. But who obtained those votes?

Former Barisan Nasional-rotated Sabah Chief Minister Yong Teck Lee, who polled 9,110 votes against 4, 962 by Dr Chong, lost the seat. Yong had won by 4, 962 votes. Harris drew 3,576 votes.

Even if all of the Likas-resident Harris' votes came from the illegals, a likely possibility but nevertheless strenuously denied by those in his camp, that still left over 1,424 votes from the illegals for Yong since these people wouldn't vote for PBS, then in the Opposition. If these 1,424 votes are discounted from Yong's margin of victory, he still won by 3,538 votes. Only judicial activism could have saved Yong unless the ballot boxes were opened up and each voted recounted.

In a 15 June, 2001 media statement, then Dap National Chairman Lim Kit Siang lamented the subsequent disclosure that the Judge had received a telephone directive from someone at the top of the Judiciary to strike out the Likas petition without a hearing. Lim's beef was that the Judge did not disclose the telephone call in Court.

So, not much can be placed in the case of proven electoral fraud, on the Court stripping the winner of a disputed victory and awarding it to his nearest challenger.

Never ending go back to India, China cries from Nusantara people

There should be a system in place for the Court, in case of election petitions alleging fraud, to scrutinize the ballot papers and determine who collected whose vote. That would be the most efficient way to determine polls winners instead of a re-poll which would necessitate the cleaning up of the electoral rolls, a process which has been bitterly disputed in the past.

Still, the bottomline may not even be the extent of electoral fraud.

It comes back to the system again.

The greatest fraud perpetrated against the people of Malaysia is the formation of pre-polls coalitions. These coalitions circumvent the democratic process by endorsing elite power-sharing and denying the grassroots majority meaningful participation in the electoral process. The formation of coalitions should only be allowed, by law, after the elections are over.

Coalition government need not be inevitability.

The party with the most number of seats in Parliament, for example, can share the Federal Cabinet and Government posts with other political parties without entering into coalition government.

If coalition government is the option exercise, such a coalition must disband on the eve of the next elections to ensure a free for all at the ballot box. That by itself would spell the end of political parties based on narrow considerations like race and religion.

Politics can then be fought on issues and these may be urban, suburban, rural, coastal, from the interior or the high mountain country. No longer would anyone be identified by his race or religion in politics or whether he's an Orang Asal, recently or long arrived or the descendents of those recently arrived or long arrived.

No longer would anyone be told to "go back to India or China", for example, if they are "not happy in Malaysia".

No pledge from Dap not to fraudulently embrace Umno

Every election, and in the run-up to elections, the Indian community in particular are subject to all sorts of indignities, racial abuse and derogatory remarks in the struggle to confine the national cake to a smaller number of people.

The Opposition is a marriage of convenience united by Malay hatred in particular for the BN in general and Umno in particular. The marriage appears to be less unholy now than when it was first formed.

The BN in Malaya, apart from Umno, has fallen apart and will crumble under a united Opposition assault come this 13th GE but will continue in Sabah and Sarawak, mauled and bruised in the latter in particular but still taking power.

In the absence of a public pledge, it's being speculated that the urban and Chinese-based Dap would not hesitate to abandon its Malay and Islamic partners, PKR and Pas, in the aftermath of the 13th GE and team up with Umno to share the Federal Government provided the MCA and Gerakan are removed. That would be like the Pap of Singapore fraudulently achieving by the backdoor what it failed to do in Malaysia.

People of Borneo given the short end of the stick in Malaysia

The greatest fraud perpetrated in Malaysia was to weaken the voice of the people of Borneo nations in Parliament.

The two countries, Sabah and Sarawak, have a combined 57 seats in Parliament, less than the at least one third plus one promised by the 1963 Malaysia Agreement. This is 18 less seats than they should have out of 222 seats.

To add insult to injury, many of the 57 seats are held by Malaya-based parties across the political divide, thus further weakening the voice of the people of Borneo in the Malaysian Parliament.

The Registrar of Societies (ROS) is a party to these political parties being in violation of the Malaysia Agreement. It facilitates Putrajaya ruling Sabah and Sarawak through rogue elements – Projek IC operatives, Moro National Liberation Front, Moro Islamic Liberation Front, Abu Sayyaf – local proxies (local Muslims and illegals) and their stooges (Orang Asal).

The Malaya-based parties have not even been locally-incorporated in Sabah and Sarawak to comply with at least the letter, if not the spirit, of the Malaysia Agreement.

If politics is all about the re-distribution of power and resources, the people of Borneo are being given the short end of the stick in their already disputed participation Malaysia.

There could be no greater fraud than this.

Joe Fernandez is a graduate mature student of law and an educationist, among others, who loves to write especially Submissions for Clients wishing to Act in Person and tutor at local institutions. He feels compelled, as a semi-retired journalist, to put pen to paper -- or rather the fingers to the computer keyboard -- whenever something doesn't quite jell with his weltanschauung (worldview). He shuttles between points in the Golden Heart of Borneo formed by the Sabah west coast, Labuan, Brunei, northern Sarawak and the watershed region in Borneo where three nations meet. He's half-way through a semi-autobiographical travelogue, A World with a View.

Mere ‘fraud’ not consideration in 13th GE

Posted: 09 Apr 2013 01:12 PM PDT

No election anywhere in the world is without an element of fraud.

What's more important to consider in the post-GE period is whether fraudulent practices in terms of vote count at the ballot box were of a magnitude which affected the outcome; what would be the response of the Court if indeed fraudulent practices had determined the outcome.

Joe Fernandez

Malaysians by and large worry that "fraudulent practices" by way of the electoral rolls and at the ballot box will cheat them out of the Government they want in Putrajaya and in the states. This should not be read as having a Pakatan Rakyat (PR) Government in the Federal Administrative Centre instead of one formed by the Barisan Nasional (BN).

Fraud can work both ways although the outgoing BN, revamped from the Alliance Party in the wake of the searing Sino-Malay race riots of 13 May, 1969, has ruled the country since 1957 when the British left Malaya.

In the absence of proof in the form of the proverbial smoking gun, indefinite BN rule by itself should not be seen as having been facilitated by fraudulent electoral practices. The formation of the BN itself stretched out the welcome mat for the Alliance Party.

The system itself is at fault.

The playing field is not level.

The Court should not allow the gazetting of tainted electoral rolls even if evidence of such fraud, for example Projek IC and the like, was discovered well after the public display and objection period for such rolls is over.

The delineation of constituencies is another issue since it facilitates gerrymandering.

Winning by default not evidence of fraud in elections

Putrajaya, for example, is a parliamentary seat with less than 6,000 voters. There are many Putrajayas in Malaysia which are all BN territory. Indeed, it has even been estimated that with as little as 18.9 per cent of the votes cast, the BN can still obtain 112 seats in Parliament to form the Federal Government. There are 222 seats in Parliament.

Meanwhile, Opposition strongholds have anything up to 100,000 or more voters. So, BN can still lose the popular vote and form the majority in Parliament, for example. In that case, only its moral right to govern can be questioned by the Opposition and the people. The Court is not about the truth, justice or moral values. It's about the law.

To digress a little, the Congress in India at one time, before the advent of coalition government, was able to form the Federal Government single-handedly with less than 30 per cent of the total votes cast. 18.9 per cent in Malaysia would be even more shocking!

There's a case for limiting the number of registered voters in any parliamentary seat to 50,000, plus or minus either way, within a 10,000 range. So, Putrajaya by itself will not qualify to be a parliamentary seat.

Even so, the Opposition has not been able to get its act together in recent years until the watershed 12th General Election of 2008.

Defection of Opposition after May 13 fraud perpetrated on the people

So, the ruling party can still win by default as it has been the case in Sarawak except for one point in time in 1987 known as the Ming Court Affair. After that, the Malay-based Permas disbanded and its ally, the Parti Bansa Dayak Sarawak (PBDS) joined the state government in coalition, only to find itself deregistered several years later. That set back Opposition politics in Sarawak until 2009 when the Malaya-based Opposition, despite not being united, made a credible showing in the state election.

This time the same Opposition is more united than ever in Sarawak but it is only the parliamentary seats are at stake. Seven to eight parliamentary seats, out of the 31 at stake in Sarawak, are already in the bag for the Opposition. It does not have any local Opposition parties to contend with apart from the mosquito Sarawak Workers Party (SWP), bankrolled curiously among others by Sarawak Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud to do in a coalition partner, the rising Parti Rakyat Sarawak (PRS), the part successor party to PBDS.

The people of Sarawak appear to be willing to place Sabah opposition strongman Jeffrey Kitingan's Borneo Agenda on the backburner for the moment as they wrestle with the Herculean task of removing the Taib Dynasty from power. They are willing to enter a temporary marriage of convenience with the Malaya-based Opposition parties for this singular purpose. The Borneo Agenda is explained as being against everything that the parti parti Malaya in Borneo stands for and their local presence.

The 10 May, 1969 General Election became an aberration when the Opposition fled to the newly step up BN to replace the Alliance Party.

Part of the blame for the political weakness of the opposition in Malaysia can be placed on the since discarded International Security Act (ISA) which hung like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the Opposition and also struck fear in the people at large.

Majority right to rule, minority right to be heard

Mass civil disobedience was not employed by the Opposition as a weapon in their arsenal. There were no hungry stomachs to march. People still had food on the table. It's not like in France when Marie Antoinette, the Austrian-born Queen of France during the 1789 Revolution, infamously remarked, "If the people have no bread, let them eat cake". This was her response to news that the peasants were starving. King Louis XVI was beheaded on 21 Jan, 1793 for treason, "trying to get help from royal supporters in England, Prussia and Austria". Marie Antoinette was beheaded on 16 October, 1793 for the same crime.

The first past the post system should be reviewed to allow for the voices of the losing voters to be heard in the legislature, through non-constituency based seats, if a party which failed to win even one seat in any legislature managed to muster a minimum five per cent of the votes cast nationwide. While the majority – as reflected in the legislature – has the right to rule, the minority i.e. the losing votes in elections, has a right to be heard. That's true democracy!

Effecting the outcome the principle in determining election fraud

The BN, thick-skinned as they are when it comes to corruption issues, are extremely sensitive when it comes to any hints of any element of fraud in the quest for power. It's aware that the eyes of the world are on it and besides there's the question of the Malay maruah – self-respect – and the issue of legitimacy to consider on such issues, if not in corruption.

This maruah/legitimacy factors, the Malay Achilles Heel, has seen the BN Government setting up the long-awaited Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on the extraordinary population explosion in Sabah and its reflection in the electoral rolls. The same factors, maruah and legitimacy, has seen the BN wrestling with the issues of statelessness, and the marginalisation and disenfranchisement of the Indian Nation in Malaysia, the legitimacy of Malaysia in Sabah and Sarawak, and the right of Malaysians abroad to vote.

Legitimacy by itself has wider implications, embracing security considerations, and its reflection on valuation in the economy in several areas driven by investor and consumer confidence viz. the strength of the currency, value of stocks, property prices, credit risk, credit rating and the like. When politics comes in through the door, economics will fly out the window with widespread security and other implications which will render any quest for political power either pointless or a phyric victory.

When it comes down to brass tacks, mere fraudulent practices in the GE, abominable as they are to those who claim the moral high ground, are not the main consideration in law.

No election anywhere in the world is without an element of fraud.

Many options for people to act against fraud in elections

The respective share of the popular vote is immaterial except for the Opposition and the people taking to the streets and demanding fresh polls, free and fair, under an Interim Government or the inclusion of the Opposition in the division of Cabinet and Government posts without resort to coalition government.

A 3rd alternative is a Revolutionary Government formed by the people. Revolutionary Government would also be the option if the people conclude that there's no way that the BN can be dethroned through the ballot box.

No fidgeting, it’s back to Permatang Pauh

Posted: 08 Apr 2013 03:01 PM PDT

That's typical Anwar style – a showman through and through.

By Syed Nadzri Syed Harun, FMT

After all the fidgeting, Anwar Ibrahim is back to his old Permatang Pauh in this general election (GE).

But was there any doubt in the first place that the PKR leader would leave this parliamentary seat where he once beat Mohamad Sabu and risk it all in an unfamiliar terrain? Tambun, Lumut, Lembah Pantai where he might even be slaughtered?

But that's Anwar for you. A showman through and through. The "I will announce it tomorrow night" trick.

Someone suggested he could go to Baling though since this was the Kedah district that pushed him into the limelight 40 years ago when, as a student leader and rabble-rouser, he led a raucous protest against poverty.

But Baling is not exactly the type of constituency "befitting" of Anwar now – not metropolitan enough like, say, Petaling Jaya Utara (but that's a DAP seat) or Shah Alam (that's PAS') or Bandar Tun Razak (PKR).

That's why, according to some, he was at one time contemplating contesting in Lembah Pantai – firstly to be seen as representing the hip and urbane Bangsar crowd and secondly to swap with daughter Nurul Izzah on assumption that Permatang Pauh would be easier for her.

But reports apparently came in that Lembah Pantai would be tough, even for Papa.

So, it is Permatang Pauh, the tried and tested again. The return to neighbourhood rounds and familiar faces in Tanah Liat, Kubang Semang, Sungai Semambu and Penanti.

Umno ticket

Permatang Pauh is not Anwar's kampung. His is Cherok Tok Kun near Bukit Mertajam on the other side of Seberang Perai. But it is the only constituency Anwar has ever contested in.

And ironically it was introduced unto him by Umno, shortly after he was plucked from ABIM (Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia), the radical Muslim youth movement, and brought into the party in 1982.

And, on an Umno ticket, he upset PAS strongman Zabidi Ali in the 1982 GE, launching him to political "stardom".

Zabidi at that time was the Haji Zabidi or Ustaz Zabidi whom everyone knew in the area, so Anwar's win over him raised a lot of eyebrows.

It also signalled the start of "juggernaut Anwar" because in the four times he contested in Permatang Pauh, he defeated some of the biggest names in PAS. Apart from Zabidi, there was Mohamad Sabu (1986), now PAS deputy president, and deputy Penang PAS commissioner Muzani Abdullah (1990).

READ MORE HERE

Sabah opposition’s tangled politics

Posted: 08 Apr 2013 01:01 PM PDT

The multiple U-turns and what some would call deceptions, have only served to make Sabahans as suspicious of the motives of their leaders.

On-going skirmishes between the anti- and pro-Pakatan Rakyat parties and groupings have not subsided and firebrands on both sides continue to pelt each other with jibes, possibly torpedoing their chances of succeeding the current government in the process.

Myles Togoh, FMT

KOTA KINABALU: The tussle to be the "rightful" heirs to the Umno-led Barisan Nasional coalition government in Sabah, which has splintered the opposition into several stubborn camps, is pointing to a potential voter free-for-all in the approaching 13th general election.

A seat-sharing formula that will satisfy all parties remains log-jammed and time is running out to unify voters – disenchanted with the government – under one banner.

What has come instead into the minds of many voters, all of whom are aware how 99% of their leaders have constantly switched sides after singing a different pre-election tune, is the timeless question: who to trust?

The state-based Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) appears to have dealt itself out of a bargaining position, which perhaps it never really had, and is increasingly in danger of facing competition on multiple fronts.

SAPP's singular demand that only it had a right to half or more of the 60 state assembly seats from the two it now holds after a series of defections has been declared "unreasonable" by Pakatan.

Pakatan Rakyat comprising PKR, PAS and the DAP along with the Sabah-based friendly groupings – Angkatan Perubahan Sabah (APS) and Pertubuhan Pakatan Perubahan Sabah (PPPS) headed by Wilfred Bumburing and Lajim Ukin respectively – insists that the seats should be shared equally by all six.

That means 10 seats for each. It's a bitter pill for SAPP to swallow as it leaves the pro-Pakatan grouping as potential "kingmakers" and has caused party leader Yong Teck Lee to direct some choice caustic remarks at Bumburing and Lajim, his former Parti Bersatu Sabah colleagues.

Voters are well aware that all three are former Barisan Nasional supporters – Bumburing and Lajim as recently-turned BN MPs and Yong as a former Sabah chief minister.

Sabahans suspicious

Lurking on the sideline of all this power play for the "hearts and minds" of voters in Sabah and Sarawak is the unconventional Jeffrey Kitingan, the leader of the State Reform Party (STAR). He is adamant that no "Malayan" party should be allowed to contest in either state.

He, too, is not untainted given his ambiguous role in the downfall of PBS in 1994.

And PBS, no one can argue, was at that time the real thing: an authentic, homegrown Sabah party. All four were linked to its collapse and the Umno-led BN administration of the state.

Paradoxically, both Yong and Jeffrey are now at the forefront of resurrecting what many say they helped kill off.

Malaysia’s Oil Royalty Rumble

Posted: 08 Apr 2013 11:53 AM PDT

Anas Alam Faizli

One of the issues that are bound to crop up in the 13th general election campaigns is the oil royalty. In the past, many reasons have been presented by political parties from both sides of the divide on who is entitled to what. Perhaps this article will help shed some light on the issue.

When rulers and representatives of the Straits Settlements, the Federated Malay States and the Non-Federated Malay States signed the Federation of Malaya on the 31st January 1948, nobody imagined the significant petroleum money conflicts that would ensue for the years to come. One component made all the difference; jurisdiction over all areas beyond three nautical miles of the state shores is handed over to the federal government. Section 4 of the Emergency Ordinance 1969 also defines territorial waters as three nautical miles, subject to some exceptions, including the newer states of Sabah and Sarawak.

This is the case against petroleum-related royalty payments from the federal government to some state governments today. For oil found beyond three nautical miles (beyond state territories), no royalty monies are due because they belong within federal government territories.

If we hold that the story ends here, we will conclude that no royalty is due to currently petroleum-producing state of Kelantan, or rightfully, even Terengganu and Pahang. But, the story does certainly did not end here.

Petroleum Development Act 1974

In 1973, the world witnessed an Oil Shock caused by a six-month embargo on oil supplies by the Arab members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Crude oil prices climbed four-fold overnight causing severe disruptions to many industries. Most developing economies that produce oil, including Malaysia, then began to realize the strategic and economic importance of having national control over this Black Gold.

Malaysia responded by setting up Petroliam Nasional Bhd or Petronas on August 17th 1974, our home-grown oil giant which we have slowly grown dependent upon, up to 40% of federal government budget. It was oil money that financed the RM6 billion Petronas Twin Towers and the RM22 billion Putrajaya. In fact, oil-generated income, thanks to soaring crude oil prices in the past decade, was the only way we could have afforded the whopping RM135 billion increase in government operating expenditure in 2012 compared to 2000.

The incorporation of Petronas paved the way for another defining milestone in the history of Malaysia's petroleum industry, namely the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA). The PDA is the "antagonist" to the federal constitution, used by proponents of royalty payments to states when it comes to oil exploration beyond three nautical miles of state shores. By section 2 of the PDA 1974, Petronas is vested with the "entire ownership in petroleum lying onshore or offshore Malaysia", as well as exclusive rights, power, liberty and privilege of exploring, exploiting, winning and obtaining them. The generic term "offshore Malaysia" is thus the main contention, since neither specific length from state shores were explicitly stated, nor were references to the Federal constitution "three nautical miles" component, made.

The PDA was a powerful manifestation of Malaysia's control and sovereignty as it essentially made uniform all previously separately standing agreements between the international oil operators and state governments, with regards to Malaysia's hydrocarbon resources. It entailed three major developments; one, that all finding will be under Petronas custodianship; second, that existing concession agreements will be replaced with Production Sharing Contracts (PSCs) where the government via Petronas effectively undertakes expenditure; and third, that there would be an additional five percent royalty payment to the federal government (from Petronas) on top of five percent royalty payment to state governments (also from Petronas). There were monies paid to state governments under the previous concession models but the specific magnitude is not known.

Supplementing the PDA 1974 were 13 identical Assignment Deeds and Vesting Grants, which were also separately signed between each of 13 states and the federal government between 1975 and 1976. All of them vested the rights to "petroleum whether lying onshore or offshore of Malaysia" to Petronas, in return for cash payments in the form of a yearly sum equivalent to 5% of the value of petroleum produced. Again, no length from state shores was specified with the generic term "offshore". Thus, these new deeds only exacerbated the controversy.

Sarawak and Sabah

Until 2010, Sabah had received a total of RM7.2 billion in oil royalties. Meanwhile, Sarawak is estimated to be receiving about RM600 million per annum currently. Having a federal share of the Sabah and Sarawak petroleum industry was actually the more overbearing intention behind the PDA, compared to the 1973 Oil Shock. By then, the Borneo states Petroleum industry was close to its centennial, with Shell and Esso having fully entrenched production in place in Sarawak (80,000 bpd) and Sabah (5,000 bpd) respectively. However, these operations were under legacy British-granted concession agreements with the state governments, generously skewed in favour of the oil operators. Naturally, the latter were then unhappy to fork out extra petroleum royalties to this new federal government.

The first chairman and chief executive of Petronas, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, or fondly known by Malaysians as Ku Li, took to himself the arduous task of convincing Sabah and Sarawak to agree to the PDA. His job then seemed like a tall order, since the pre-conditions were extremely delicate. First, there were contracts in place between the oil majors and the East Malaysia states, whose sanctity needed to be honoured. Secondly, Malaysia was a federation of previously sovereign states in their own rights, which entailed dues. Recollections of the process spanning 2 years include one where Ku Li was apparently barred from entry into Sabah at the airport!

Today, even though Petronas and its contractors are operating and producing out of more than three nautical miles beyond the coasts of Sabah and Sarawak, both states still receive royalty monies by way of constitution. In addition to royalties, unlike the peninsular states, both states are constitutionally entitled to export duties on "mineral oils", which petroleum qualifies for. Both royalty and duties total 10 percent.

Terengganu

Terengganu found petroleum off its shores in 1973. From 1978 to 2000, it received a sum of RM7.13 billion in royalties. Not only does the state enjoy tremendous growth from federal government allocations and royalties, it also reaped economic benefits from the formation of petroleum townships. Rantau Petronas in Kerteh is one of the most advanced full-fledged petroleum centers housing a little economy of its own.

However, royalty payments were stopped in 2000 during PAS government's one term tenure in the state. Under the constitutional clause allowing for discretionary payments from federal to state, a fraction of the due royalties known as the "Wang Ehsan" (goodwill token) was paid instead through government agencies. Royalty payments were only continued in 2009 when Terengganu is back under the Barisan government, even though productions were from areas sitting beyond three nautical miles from the state. This makes the task of concluding whether or not Terengganu should receive royalties a confusing one, considering the payment was not fulfilled the moment it was a different ruling state government.

Kelantan

Petroleum was only found off of the shores of Kelantan in the 1990's when Kelantan was under the rule of PAS, so the PDA, Vesting Grant and Assignment Deed stood unquestioned until then. As it happens, findings were either 150km (about 81 nautical miles) from Kota Bharu, or within free economic zones where the federal government has joint development agreements with Thailand and Vietnam.

For production coming off these areas, namely from blocks PM2, PM301, Malaysia-Thailand Joint Development Agreement (MTJDA) and PM3 CAA Malaysia-Vietnam, the federal government has received its share of 5 percent in royalties, totaling RM4.59 billion. While the same number is theoretically due to Kelantan state as well, the latter has received no sum, in royalties. Worse still, Kelantan enjoys absolutely no spill over economic developments in the form of a supply base, processing or transportation activities. Gas extracted off of Kelantan's shores through MTJDA bypasses Kelantan and is directly funneled to Thailand, despite it being less economical to do so.

The federal government maintains that the Federal Constitution dictates for Kelantan to not receive royalties for rights over areas it did not own in the first place. On the other hand, Kelantan bases its claims on the sanctity of the PDA, the Assignment Deed, and the Vesting Grant 1975/1976, claiming that they should not be deprived of royalties since these documents used the generic term "onshore and offshore Malaysia" in the case of petroleum, instead of three nautical miles in the general case of territorial provisions. Experts have clarified that the constitution supersedes any other laws in place, being the supreme law of the land.

In August 2010, the Kelantan state government filed a lawsuit against Petronas for failing to pay the state royalties. The government responded to this with a special study panel, which has yet to come up with a conclusion.

Substance over Form

We should be able to conclude by now that this is a complicated battle of legal interpretation. Aside from the litany of agreements and documents signed, one cannot help to discard the stark reality that both Kelantan and Terengganu were denied royalty payments during PAS' rule. It is hard to not label the issue as a politicized one. As members of the public, the continuous debacle leaves us with some pertinent questions.

First, the three nautical miles component in the Federal Constitution articulated the maritime border of states, but what about ownership of petroleum assets specifically? Surely when the relevant preceding documents were enacted, the intention was to designate petroleum and gas as a specially-treated issue given its economic and political importance. Thus, can it be seen lumped together with other maritime border issues under the constitution? If the signing of these documents were intended to cajole previously sovereign and independent states into handing over custody rights of oil blocks to Petronas, is not depriving them of royalties now a blatant dishonouring of past promises?

Second, why is the application of the "three nautical miles" component inconsistent across all peninsular states? Experts go as far as to label the Assignment Deed 1975 unconstitutional and containing serious defects because it failed to specify that Kelantan can only assign to Petronas areas that belonged to it. Even so, why does it apply to Terengganu and now, Pahang who is without question promised the five percent oil royalty for the recent Bertam PM307 discovery 160km (86.3 nautical miles) offshore Kuantan? Terengganu and Pahang too then should rightfully have no claim over portions of gross oil revenues from areas beyond state borders. This is against Article 8 of the Federal Constitution that calls for equal treatment of all and non-discrimination.

Third, what was the initial intention of promising cash payments to the state government? If it was to appease the sovereign states into agreeing to share revenues from their natural resources with the rest of the country, is it fair to dishonour them after making them believe their interests were protected prior to the signing? As it is, annual allocations to state governments are only 8.6 percent of the federal government's annual budget.

At the end of the day, we conclude that there are two parties using two contending documents; the PDA and the Federal constitution. But what point is there for the claims to be tossed between legal documents, while the reality is the four producing states are amongst the poorest states in Malaysia? Kelantan sees the lowest household income averaging RM2,536 below national average of RM4,025, while Sabah's incidence of poverty of 19.2% is a stark level above national level of 3.8%.

Have we ever wondered then, if the states would be as willing to sign the PDA 1974 and various petroleum-related agreements vesting rights to Petronas, if not misled into believing that they would be able to enjoy at least some of their natural endowments?

As Plato said, "We deny that laws are true laws unless they are enacted in the interest of the common wealth of the whole state."

** Anas Alam Faizli is an Oil and Gas professional. He holds a Master's degree in Project Management and is pursuing a post graduate doctorate. He tweets at @aafaizli

Why Are Uthaya and Hindraf Helping the Enemy?

Posted: 08 Apr 2013 11:48 AM PDT

Kee Thuan Chye

People who want to see change at the upcoming 13th general election and the end of Barisan Nasional (BN) rule are angry with P. Uthayakumar and his Hindu Rights Party (HRP) for declaring their intention to stand in Selangor seats currently held by Pakatan Rakyat.

They see this as a betrayal. Standing in these seats as independents (because HRP's application for registration has been rejected by the Registrar of Societies), HRP members will create three-cornered fights that will bring advantage to BN. Why Uthayakumar and his party would do this to help BN is shocking to many.

After all, this is the same BN that treated them like pariahs when Hindraf, of which they were a part, held its mammoth rally in November 2007. Despite its being a peaceful demonstration, with numerous participants carrying pictures of Mahatma Gandhi to emphasise that, the BN-led government unleashed tear gas and water cannons on them. A total of 136 demonstrators were arrested.

Uthayakumar himself was hauled to Kamunting as a detainee without trial under the Internal Security Act (ISA). So were a few other Hindraf leaders. Hindraf was unjustly accused of being linked to the Sri Lankan terrorist group Tamil Tigers. It was even outlawed by the Government – until just last January.

An irate pro-change citizen has this to say: "I am terribly angry. I remember when they were in Kamunting, we defied the police and held candlelight vigils praying for them to be released. We even contributed cash to their families. All that has been so quickly forgotten."

Putting two and two together, observers have come up with the theory that BN may have wooed over Uthayakumar and his ilk the way it has been wooing the Indian community as a whole.

BN Chairman Najib Razak, in order to win Indian votes, has been throwing out cash and goodies of all sorts to the Indian community under the pretext of helping them. Observers believe he could be doing the same for the political groups, like HRP and the Makkal Sakthi Party headed by another ex-Hindraf leader, R.S. Thanenthiran, who was given a datukship soon after his party aligned itself with BN.

Obviously, there is nothing Najib would wish for more than to also win Selangor back for BN. He knows that winning Putrajaya would not be complete without that much-coveted state in the bag as well, and his job as Umno president and therefore prime minister could well depend on that if BN doesn't win by a two-thirds majority.

Not surprisingly, therefore, he made himself the Selangor BN chief. And going by his track record of stealing Perak back from Pakatan in 2008, one can expect him to pull off any kind of tactic, including unsavoury ones, to steal a march on Pakatan again – in Selangor this time.

The word going around now is that some Indians are planning to vote for the third candidate standing in all seats nationwide, not just in Selangor. This will definitely split the Opposition votes. Their reason for doing this is that they want to protest against Pakatan for not accepting Hindraf's blueprint to benefit the Indians.

This is not quite fair. Pakatan met with Hindraf Chairman P. Waythamoorthy to discuss the blueprint and has not rejected it. As of Feb 18, 2013, Pakatan's leaders said they were still attempting to translate the blueprint into "implementable policies and amendments to the law".

On the other hand, BN has not accepted the blueprint either. So why should this former enemy of Hindraf be suddenly favoured?

Furthermore, the DAP, one of the main parties in the Pakatan coalition, has announced a 14-point plan billed the "Gelang Patah Declaration" specifically addressing the socio-economic needs of the Indians.

However, Hindraf advisor N. Ganesan chooses to see it as a "plagiarised version" of Hindraf's blueprint. He says it incorporates 11 of Hindraf's proposals, and questions the sincerity behind the declaration.

One would think that the DAP's incorporation of Hindraf's proposals would be seen as a positive move, but apparently Hindraf is also playing political games. It is holding out for a better deal from BN after having met with Najib on March 25. Ganesan has revealed that he is now awaiting a second formal meeting to take place, and he thinks it will be soon.

In criticising the DAP's Declaration, Ganesan now brings up all the grouses Hindraf has against the DAP dating back five years, and even accuses it of coming out with a race-based declaration when all this while it has been arguing along needs-based lines!

When Pakatan, which advocates rejecting race-based policy-making, did not specifically address Indian needs in its election manifesto, choosing instead to address the poor and the marginalised as a generic entity, it was accused of neglecting the Indians. Now when the DAP goes the way of attending to Indian needs, it is accused of "doublespeak".

The Battle of Election Manifesto (WITH CHINESE TRANSLATION)

Posted: 07 Apr 2013 07:14 PM PDT

Nonetheless, there are weaknesses in both PR's and BN's Election Manifestos. In order to woo the voters both sides have made promises that are beyond their current capability to fulfill. For example, they both vow to provide different types of subsidies and welfare but they never explain how they intend to implement that without hurting the country's economic health.

Original text by Tay Tian Yan, Asst. Chief Editor, SinChew Daily

Translated text by Gilbert Yeoh-Tan

Following PR's declaration, BN has recently come out with their own Election Manifesto covering 17 different categories with over 100++ subcategories.

Women's rights, public welfare, automobile, housing …… etc, BN have had a hard time summarizing their Manifesto even after several advertising pages in newspapers have been used to publish their promises.

To be frank, I am a bit dazzled at this. This is just like Malaysia's Mega Sales season all over again: every shop in every shopping mall puts on their flashy "SALES" or "Buy-1-Free-1" posters. The consumers do not know where to begin shopping, and whether the deals are really as appealing as advertised.

Many beautiful promises are made in the Manifesto with aim to project a happy, harmonious future in the voters' minds. However if you are to erase the word 'BN' or 'PR' from the front page of their Manifestos, I will honestly tell you that I won't know which Manifesto belongs to which party.

What I am trying to say is, there are many promises of considerable quality coming from both sides trying to capture the 'customers', but 'Whatever they offer, we will match it' is the main theme of these Manifestos.

PR vow to subsidize the needy, BN of course react by beefing up the BR1M; PR promise to reduce car tax, BN simply announce that they will reduce car price by 30%. PR pledge to abolish the highway toll fees, BN will …….. well, this is a tough case, so they just promise to reduce the number of toll stations.

Other issues like protecting women's rights, reinforcing the anti-corruption agency, building more affordable housings, improving security etc., both sides basically offer the same package. And for as long as I can remember, the Election Manifestos have never been this 'cheap' and 'grand' at the same time.

There is a good analogy to describe what is happening; before there was only a supermarket in the town, so the consumers had to buy the products that supermarket was selling at the fixed prices. Now another supermarket has emerged, the competition is present and to win over the consumers both have to bring out their promotions. Furthermore, the items sold have to be of good quality as well.

The good thing of these Manifestos is that both sides have stated their policy agendas and since both are selling their policies they have to compete on coming out with the better policies.

I think this can indeed benefit the society; their goal is to gain more support from the people, and in order to do that they will have to agree to the good policies put forth by the people that involve society welfare, anti-corruption, transparency, improvement of traffic system, improvement of security etc. These demands can also help shifting focus from negative issues such as differences (and disputes) between races and religions to other greater issues that are beneficial to all races and religions.

This also serves as a good indication that our society is taking the correct direction towards a better, more matured democracy.

I do not know how much money and resources will be needed to materialize these welfare policies, but the bottom line is, both sides have not put forth a concrete strategy to increase national income to cope with the sudden increase in spending resulting from these policies.

Just like some supermarkets that offer fire-sales with steep price-cutting, although they may get all the business, they are making huge loses as well. And in the end, they have but to declare bankruptcy and close down their shop.

*****************************************

鄭丁賢‧競選宣言，互別苗頭

繼民聯之後，國陣發表了競選宣言；17個領域，項目應該過百。

從婦女、福利、汽車、房屋……，連報章都要用好幾版面，才勉強呈現一個大概。

老實說，我有點眼花繚亂；這就好像馬來西亞購物節來到，購物中心大減價，每一家商店和攤位，都貼出大平賣、大促銷、買一送一的特惠。

購物者不知如何買起，也不知是否真的如此好康。

政黨的競選宣言，同樣也是美麗承諾很多，未來是一幅幸福美滿的景象。

然而，老實說，如果把宣言之前的"民聯＂和"國陣＂字眼拿走，我大概也分不清楚誰是誰。

我的意思是，承諾很多，但同質性很高，你有的，我也要有，為了爭取顧客……，噢，選民，絕對不能輸陣。

民聯要給弱勢群體津貼，國陣當然是"一馬援助金＂加碼；民聯要取消汽車國產稅，國陣干脆宣佈車價要降30%；民聯要廢除過路費，國陣……唔，這個有點困難，那就減少收費站吧。

其它如提昇婦女地位，加強反貪措施，興建可負擔房屋，改善治安等等，也差不多。

印象中，競選宣言從來未曾那麼大平賣，也沒有那麼盛重其事。

當然，這就好比之前鎮上只有一家購物中心，它賣甚麼，消費人就得買甚麼，賣多少價錢，大家也得掏腰包。

而今購物商場增加了，競爭激烈，彼此搶顧客，就要有各自的大促銷；此外，賣的東西，品質也要有保障。

民聯和國陣的競選宣言，優點是各自提出施政綱領，賣的是政策，雙方必須在政策上一較高下。

我覺得這是大馬政治趨向好的發展。一旦彼此在政策上競爭，就必須爭取更多的群眾，而提出對多數人都有好處的政策，包括社會福利、反貪和清廉，透明和公平、改善交通和治安。

競爭的層面擴大之後，可以把種族和宗教的分別淡化，把重點放在不同族群和不同宗教的共同需要之上。

這也顯示民主發展朝向正面的發展。

不過，民聯和國陣的競選宣言也都有共同的弱點。

為了爭取選票，雙方可能都做出了超過能力和本份的承諾；譬如提供林林總總的福利固然誘入，但是，如何在不傷害國家經濟體質的情況下落實，卻缺乏說明。

我無從計算這些福利政策究竟要消耗多少資源和成本，問題是，雙方的競選宣言都沒有具體說明執政之後，如何增加國家的收入，以應付這些開銷。

這就好像購物中心的跳樓大促銷，拚命削價賣，然而，即使做到生意，結果卻是虧大本，到時一樣要結束營業。

PR & HINDRAF: The Missed Opportunity

Posted: 07 Apr 2013 12:31 PM PDT

And because the blueprint is couched in terms of "Indian demands" as MIC has traditionally done so, it is easy for BN to accede to their blueprint. In fact, it is back to the quintessential "Alliance formula" of 1957 except that BN will then have a new associate tagged onto the MIC.

Dr Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser

I attended one of HINDRAF's dinners a few weeks ago at which they explained their blueprint for the 13GE. After the presentation, I posed the hypothetical question which seemed like quite a likely scenario: "What if the BN embraces your blueprint? What then?"

Waythayamoorthy's reply was clear: "We would rather PR accepts our blueprint after all we have gone through under BN since Independence…" or words to that effect.

Well, now the election has been called and what is the scenario? BN is at the point of embracing HINDRAF's blueprint, whether in toto or in part.

What is politically bewildering is that PR has rebuffed HINDRAF and has not included any proposals from the blueprint in their manifesto or that challenges the institutional racism (in particular, the NEP) that has been part of BN policy since 1971. The rationale was that HINDRAF's blueprint was based on race while their manifesto was based on need of all classes.

After HINDRAF's criticism of the PR manifesto, the Indian leaders in PR gave the lame excuse that they were not in the drafting committee of the PR manifesto. This was hardly convincing, while giving the public a poor image of the way in which policies are made within the PR coalition.

Soon after that, the DAP has seen fit to include several "pro-Indian" proposals in their post facto "Gelang Patah Declaration" and after they had done that, HINDRAF accused the DAP of plagiarising from their blueprint.

The bizarre and total inconsistency of this Gelang Patah Declaration is the fact that it was promulgated as a DAP rather than a PR policy statement! Why wasn't it a PR declaration? Is the declaration only acceptable by the DAP but not PKR and PAS? Why was this not "racist" when the PR had said that the HINDRAF blueprint was racist? Politically, it looked ridiculous while providing more grist for BN fire against the PR coalition.

Whatever happens to this blossoming BN-HINDRAF romance, we will have to see if the union is eventually solemnised. It should not if the HINDRAF leaders have any political nous and honesty regarding UMNO's cynical use of institutional racism through their 56 year reign, which is the root cause of national oppression of the ethnic minorities.

If BN can accept HINDRAF's blueprint, something's wrong with the blueprint

I have pointed out in an earlier article that the main failure in HINDRAF's blueprint is its failure to demand the eradication of Institutional Racism. I have shared several fora with HINDRAF leaders at which we have condemned institutional racism in Malaysia. And despite their efforts in recent years highlighting the entrenchment of racial discrimination in the Constitution, I am surprised that the Hindraf Blueprint does not call for the abolition of the "New Economic Policy".

PR cannot claim to be holier than thou because neither does PR condemn this institutional racism and announce their readiness to abolish the NEP in their manifesto.

Any corrective action in all economic and education policies must be based on need or sector or class and not on race with priority given to indigenous people, marginalised and poor communities. Since their blueprint extols human rights, Hindraf should put forward their demands for all minorities and not just the Indian community. Thus we find a gaping "disconnect" between Hindraf's noble challenge to racial discrimination entrenched in the Constitution and their "Indians Only" proposals in the blueprint.

I have also earlier pointed out that to be consistent in their human rights stand, Hindraf should also call for:

• the repeal of Amendment (8A) of Article 153 that was passed during the state of emergency in 1971 and was not in the original 1957 federal constitution;

• institutionalizing means testing for any access to scholarships or other entitlements;

• implementing merit-based recruitment in civil & armed services;

• enacting an Equality Act to promote equality and non-discrimination irrespective of race, creed, religion, gender or disability with provision for an Equality & Human Rights Commission;

• institutionalising equality and human rights education at all decision-making levels, including state and non-state actors/ institutions;

• ratifying the Convention on the Eradication of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

If the HINDRAF blueprint was couched in these human rights terms, do you think BN would accept it?

Certainly not because BN has always been a "racial formula", the coalition is the sum of its racialist parts – "UMNO, MCA, MIC and associates".

Is PR suffering from a mental block on the National Question?

But why is PR averse to coopting HINDRAF's blueprint and now losing the opportunity of a historic alliance with HINDRAF? Is it because PR is more purist than BN on the national question? I don't think so because if the PR manifesto can take into account "FELDA settlers", there is no reason why it cannot make considerations for "displaced plantation communities" or "the stateless", etc. that is in the post facto Gelang Patah declaration. The DAP, as usual, are "wise after the event", a euphemism for opportunism!

Or could it be that incorporating HINDRAF would pose a threat to the jostling for seats among the Indian leaders in PR? If this "realpolitik" is indeed one of the reasons for the PR-HINDRAF fallout, it is a let-down of serious proportions for all Malaysians who hope for change in the 13GE.

And having been spurned by the PR manifesto, we could only expect the fury of the HINDRAF backlash against the plagiarism by DAP…

No, in the end it boils down to PR's failure to come to terms with the national question, and that involves taking a stand on the NEP. Isn't it time for change? Isn't it time for real change that will set our nation on a new footing of reconciliation and reconstruction, when we are no longer divided into "races" and progressive policies can be put in place to help the truly needy? Alas, I am afraid the "Ubah" in PR does not go far enough. (And I would ask all the homespun political philosophers to spare me their pearls of wisdom about the "pragmatic" reasons for "not frightening the Malays" in this 13GE!)

Ultimately, a nation that is unequal can never be free or be at peace. HINDRAF has already announced that they will be putting up candidates in several seats. Likewise, PR's ambivalence toward the left, namely PSM, will likely see 3-corner contests in those constituencies that PSM will be contesting. I am afraid this historic non-compromise between PR and HINDRAF in the 13GE will probably go down in Malaysian history as one of the most unfortunate missed opportunities in the overthrow of BN rule…

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Rabu, 10 April 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan