The defining movement of PDA 1974 and Government of Malaya is now exposed

The defining movement of PDA 1974 and Government of Malaya is now exposed

In Petroleum Development Act 1974 Act 144, and stated in Definition 10. For the purpose of this Act, the expression “petroleum” means any mineral oil or relative hydrocarbon and natural gas existing in its natural condition and casing head petroleum spirit including bituminous shales and other stratified deposits from which oil can be extracted

Definition of petroleum (Merriam-webster) since 1828 : an oily flammable bituminous liquid that may vary from almost colorless to black, occurs in many places in the upper strata of the earth, is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons with small amounts of other substances, and is prepared for use as gasoline, naphtha, or other products by various refining processes

Definiition of Petroleum (the Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of current English) London Oxford  University Press 1963 is mineral oil. Definition is defining and defining is explain the meaning of (e.g. words) and/or state or show clearly

Definition of Petroleum  (Chambers Encyclopedic English Dictionary 1994)  noun a naturally occurring oil consisting of a thick black, brown, or greenish liquid mixture of hydrocarbon and definition is “a statement of the meaning of a word or phrase and the quality of  having clear, precise limits or form.

So the issues before us are that the questioned clear meaning of the words “ definition” and “petroleum” used in the said Act of Parliament in the context of natural gas .

As the word “definition” is used in substantive error based on the dictionaries in the Act, the Act is an illegality null and void ab initio in the extraction of petroleum and natural gas in Sabah.

Petroleum is the substance that can be extracted if PDA 1974 Act 144 valid and in this case as the said Act is faulty hence illegal and extraction of natural gas is also illegal.

So do we need to go to Malaysian Judiciary to settle the PDA 1974 in terms such as financial, legal, power and nation building?

Or is it for the Parliament to decide on this Act and act accordingly to handle the illegal act of extracting massive amount of petroleum (liquid) and natural gas illegally since 1976 in Sarawak and Sabah or any other states in Malaysia?   

A top practising lawyer who is now retired from Judiciary recently had told me once that he could win court cases by finding faults with a word or two. Here we have grave dispute with definition, petroleum and natural gas.

In the same veins of illegalities aplenty if properly scrutinised in Malaysia, isn’t it an illegal act for the Government of Malaya to be “defunct” by design after signing the Malaysia Agreement 1963 on 9^th July, 1963? How can a signatory to a very important agreement MA63 go missing without notice for so long after signing the said Agreement? Isn’t it MA63 like any partnership agreement that can have litigation subsequently?

Lets say now MA63 is in grave and great dispute and the partners in Borneo decides to file a legal case in Court against Malaya, and who can be the defendant? If the defendant is Malaysia, isn’t it an irony that Sabah and Sarawak as part of the Government of Malaysia with parliamentarians suing itself in any internal disputes? What would be the stand of the Judiciary in wrong party?  Again if the decision of such legal case be decided in favour of the states in Borneo, any such financial compensation and damages would be shared by the three states/entities Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak making a mockery of justice.

Would these cases especially PDA 1974 be settled amicably or otherwise?

Joshua Y C Kong 27/10/2019

Copyrights reserved.

We can never afford to lose Tanjung Aru Beach

We can never afford to lose Tanjung Aru Beach

Tanjung Aru Beach (TAB) in unfortunately allowed to “degenerate” into Tanjung Aru Eco Development Sdn Bhd. or TAED since 2013 by exPrime Minister Najib Razak as aided and abetted by exCM Musa Aman for reasons best known to them.

TAED has been a thorn for a few years of endless debate bordering on hopelessness as the substance of TAED’s intention is simply questioned and dubious.  Lots of pros and cons had been raised via the SEIA of the Environment Department and many sleepless nights for activists and conservationists alike.

Despite the new State Government in its manifesto GE14 of keeping the TAB untouched, the new State Government under Warisan has changed its stance on TAB and TAED for fresh development.

The latest development of TAED is that as exposed in a news article titled “No State funding now for TAED” (DE 20 Oct, 2019) where the state minister Datuk Junz Wong had exposed new development with TAED.

It is indeed very worrying that we may lose TAB in most unfortunate way as the article stated that “the final decision lies in the hands of the Chief Minister and the State Cabinet over the estimated RM4 billions needed…” But the heading “No state funding now for TAED” has given away that outsiders are coming in such fund and no further details had been revealed.  China funding has been in the news everywhere but can we lose TAB if China allows the fund to come but no way for Sabah to repay the loan as there is no feasibility paper to show the performance of TAED.

Before we talk of funding, it is seen that TAED is in a mess in TAB even spending RM90m in various   preliminaries including purchase of land thereof.  TAB is now devoid of its many heritage buildings in great disrepair and plundering by illegal trespassing of the private TAED land given the land title in 2016.  So far no steps were taken to protect those buildings of heritage value. So it can be said that RM90m is wasted public fund and no improvement to TAB was undertaken so far.  I hope the relevant authorities should take TAED Sdn. Bhd to task for the poor state of affairs in TAB as expected of the land owner.

Until the full facts of the massive funder are disclosed, it is unjust to speculate over this possibility.

If it is China or any country to come up with RM4 billons, how would Sabah propose to pay back such finance given the current state of financial affairs in Sabah vis-à-vis Federal Government?

So it is premature to do anything with TAED in case we may lose almost everything in TAB as every funder would take advantage of the prime land like TAB which is worth anything up to RM30billions. We must avoid such land grab at all costs.  Sabah has lost too much to outsiders and yet we have not learnt anything.

Meanwhile, I have conveyed to CM a revenue scheme where a loophole in the administration of federal revenue can allow the nation to recover massive revenue going into billions of Ringgit and hopefully Sabah would be allocated a substantial amount like 45% for my special initiative in this undertaking to be implemented successfully within two years.

With the setup of the proposed Sabah Sovereign Wealth Fund (SSWF), we can carry out much improvement in Sabah’s infrastructure ourselves with internal fund to generate much more desired revenue for the people in Sabah.

Less haste to keep Sabah intact naturally.

Joshua Y C Kong23/10/2019

Gaya island needs much better transformation

Gaya island needs much better transformation

I refer to the article headed “Turn Gaya into island park: Harris” (DE 7 Oct) where he said that Gaya island be made an iconic island park without buildings or people staying overnight other than the security guards. He also suggested an electric train to serve the island park but he missed out mentioning a bridge to go with the train as shown in the picture in the said article.

We know Gaya island is very strategic location in Kota Kinabalu since time immemorial and the water way has served the KK city well with the  harbour and port city taking shape into another zone of tourism businesses with several high density buildings and cruise ships wharf plus the  international convention centre soon to be open next year.

So there will be much more traffic between KK city and the Gaya island with those upcoming developments at the former port area.

Lets think again a bridge into Gaya island as an island park and not a resort devoid of inhabitants as suggested by the exCM is contradictory to keeping the island pristine again.  With the bridge possibly also for vehicles possibly for thousands of vehicles daily, where would these vehicles be parked there?  If the bridge is only for the electric training, would that be running automatically twenty four hours daily?  I think instead of the restricting and expensive bridge that can bring thousands of vehicles to pollute the environment of the island park, it is a better option for a very good and regular ferry services (more jobs opportunities) by various sizes of ferry ships. Once the bridge is in place there, movements in the water way could be inhibited and potentials thereof much diminished. The experience of travelling in a regular and reliable ferry would be an enjoyable time well worth the journey to and fro the island instead of the small boats serving travellers at the present moment.  The same ferry service can also move around the island for sightseeing.

To keep the island park pristine again, we need to act on the re-location of the squatter people and demolish the quarters/houses plus a great deal of work to clean up the whole area including the black water between KK City and the Gaya Island.  It is very important that we can clean up the area and to bring back the coral, coral fishes and sea foods once abundant.

I think the money to transform the area into a very much desired iconic and enjoyable site would be available for the special exercise including re-locating the local residents in Gaya Island to the mainland. Some of these people can come back to serve in the ferry service and maintain the island pristine for the increasing tourists and local alike.

There is no longer any excuse to delay the transformation of Gaya Island.

Joshua Y C Kong 18/10/2019