Blackout confirmed Constitutional Crisis

http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/read.cfm?NewsID=2340

Home / Forum

Why then amend MA63– and after Stephens gone?

Published on: Sunday, December 11, 2016

By Joshua YC Kong
I WAS in the Sabah Legislative building after a lapse of a few years recently, arriving just before noon when a black out occurred.Chief Minister Datuk Seri Musa Aman told the Assembly that day there was no issue on status of Sabah both at the time of the Malaysia Agreement (MA63) or when amended in 1976.
the MA63 was framed with the intention of a partnership of 3/4 parts including Singapore which left in August 1965.
When it was based on partnership concept, it does not matter when Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore were referred as “states” when Sabah Sarawak were colonies then and Singapore was already an independent nation and such term “states” are irrelevant when partnership is concerned.
why then amend the sacred Constitution in 1976, 12 years later as after thought when this could be done in 1965 when Donald Stephens was still around with the departure of Singapore? Then in 1976, Stephens was dead.
Ex-CM Tan Sri Harris said he agreed with Musa and he went on to say a lot more against the necessity as demanded by some people to revert to MA63.
Harris blamed the plight of Sabah and Sarawak to the negative policies that ignore the interests of Malaysians in the two states.”
That is just hitting on the nail when MA63 was manipulated and so much diluted in many aspects in terms of justice of any agreement made.
Joshua YC Kong

Blackout confirmed Constitutional Crisis

I was in the Sabah Legislative building after a lapse of a few years this morning (21 Nov ) arriving just before noon when black out occurred.

Isn’t it a “deadly” sign in the power outage or black out  that Chief Minister Musa Aman missed the important point on MA63 by telling the Assembly that “No issue on status”.

There are many issues that have been raised recently albeit still not too late after 53 years after the “earthquake” on 13 July, 1976 in Parliament.

The point CM missed was obvious the MA63 was framed with the intention of a partnership of 3/4  parts including Singapore which left in August 1965.

If indeed there was a Malaysia Act 1963, then the Parliament was referred to Parliament of Jamaica. (see document attached).  That is Malaysia Act 1963 as invalid and null and void with no effect.

When it was based on partnership concept, it does not matter when Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore were referred as “states” when Sabah Sarawak were colonies then and Singapore was already an independent nation and such term “states” are irrelevant when partnership is concerned.

If what Musa claim is correct, why then amend the sacred Constitution in 1976, 12 years later as after thought when this could be done in 1965 when Donald Stephen was still around with the departure of Singapore?  Then in 1976, Donald was dead.

So with that Sabah was gone as good with the “destruction” of M63 on the partnership deal.

So no longer for restoration of MA63 to be delayed and what is needed now is to deal with all the “losses” suffered by Sabah and Sarawak in several key aspects now to put Sabah and Sarawak on almost equal footing of 3 / 4 instead 12 and 13  post 1976.

Joshua Y C Kong 23 November, 2016

GST is to be questioned...

GST is to be questioned when Sales Tax is also retained in Sabah and Sarawak

GST or Goods and Service Tax has been implemented since April 1, 2015 in Malaysia to replace Sales Tax and Service Tax for certain business activities.

The Sales Tax in Sabah for some decades had been 15% and the State Government collects it as state revenue. 

While there is a question over the challenge by Political activist and author of the book The Queen's Obligation, Zainnal Ajamain that GST and the double tax Sales Tax still applied in Sabah is a violation of Malaysia Agreement 1963, I would like to add certain aspects that had been overlooked.

How to deal with this anomaly of sort of double taxation when GST and Sales Tax are still enforced making the products like palm oil less competitive hence more costly to consumers and the “gambling tax” as duplicated too?

 The latest State budget 2017 mentioned that “the revenue collection for State Sales Tax on Crude Palm Oil (CPO) remains the second highest contributor to the State’s revenue. Alhamdulillah, the current CPO price has increased to an average of RM2,500 per metric tonne compared to RM2,200 per metric tonne last year. Thus, the Government has projected a collection from the State Sales Tax on CPO for the year 2017 amounting to RM936 million or 24.5% of the total State Revenue Budget in year 2017.”

Also stated in the Budget speech was “Meanwhile, the revenue estimates for the State Sales Tax on lottery tickets for the year 2017 is expected to remain at RM70 million. Whereas the estimates for the Sales Tax for Slot Machines is expected to increase to RM12.5 million in 2017 compared to RM11.5 million for the year 2016.”  Also are lottery tickets be subject to GST when they are not goods and service but gambling stakes?

What would Harris Salleh say about the paramount authority of the Parliament over State Assembly in this awkward status of the still applied Sales Tax?  Why such departure is permitted by the Federal Government in this instance?  How can this be justified?

It was mentioned that GST was to replace Sales Tax and Service Tax, but Sales Tax at 15% was still retained in Sabah and Sarawak.

It has been argued that Sales tax goes to the State coffer and that the State has the authority to continue to implement such tax.  Is this legal in term of governance as a nation?

The consumers in Sabah and Sarawak are powerless to force the removal of Sales Tax.

The other issue to be raised is “Are the portion of GST returned to the respective state/partner of MA63 and in this context is Sabah getting back 40% of the GST collected in Sabah including those amount paid by groups of companies with operations in Sabah?”

Another issue is that postage stamps only subject to GST recently in 2016 and not from April, 2015.  Was this an overlooked item?

There are too many ironic developments and Sabah seems to be always at the receiving end of injustice.

Joshua Y C Kong 23 November, 2016

Tsunami in Sabah - land below the wind?

Tsunami in Sabah – land below the wind?

Would Tsunami really hit Sabah be it in Kudat, Sandakan, or elsewhere after any massive earthquake around us?  That is what Meteorological Department Malaysia said that Kudat district is likely to be hit by a tsunami if an underwater earthquake takes place in the Philippines (Manila Trench) or the massive collapse of a seabed cliff off Brunei.

So in preparation of that TSUNAMI DRILL IN PUTATAN, SABAH on 5^th November, 2016 so near to the Tanjung Aru Beach (TAB) and other major urban area in Kota Kinabalu, a stretch of sea front/ beach between Manila Trench and Brunei, which also happen to be so near to the Spratly Islands where China had a built up land.

With such a built up in South China sea, the current and waves would be diverted to Sabah should tsunami arise although some think it is unlikely to occur in Sabah but how would we know that such thing would not happen?  Now within days of the tsunami alert we have seen two sink holes in Likas roads which could indicate something in the movement or crack lines of earth underneath.

With the latest development of TAB into a Tanjung Aru Eco Development (TAED) project, how would we not be conscious now that TAB could be hit as well when tsunami comes ashore in Sabah?  TAED is now cheap with a “improvement” budget of RM5b and should such a tsunami of 50 meters as anticipated hit TAB, what would we lost?  The massive devastating losses could extend beyond TAB into Tanjung Aru township and the KK International airport as these two areas would be in sort of a valley with the hills of Kepayan inland.

So it is important that the Environment Protection Department (EPD) in its third Special Environment Impact Assessment (SEIA) takes special notice of this latest anticipation of the possible tsunami in the context of TAED.  Who would have known that our majestic Mt Kinabalu encountered a massive earthquake in 2015 and in the same vein tsunami is not that far off.

The important thing to do now is to improve TAB and our seashores naturally as how to ward off any event of possible tsunami with minimum losses to properties and lives.

Joshua Y. C. Kong 15 November, 2016