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

MA63 is past discussion mode

http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/read.cfm?NewsID=2302
Nothing to discuss but to honour the Agreement
Published on: Saturday, November 19, 2016

By Joshua Y. C. Kong
I REFER to the Prime Minister saying he is ready to discuss MA63 a few days ago in Kota Kinabalu when the Hussein Onn administration on 13 July 1976 caused Sabah and Sarawak to become 12 and 13 states in Malaysia.
That “earthquake” happened after the plane crash in Kota Kinabalu on 6 June, 1976.
Is it possible GE14 is just around the corner and Datuk Seri Najib is just toying with another development just like it in GE13 when he promised “tough” action on the Royal Commission Inquiry on Illegal Immigrants Sabah in 2012.
Unfortunately, the much delayed action on the Report on RCI IIS on 4th December, 2014 is still in dormant mode despite two action committees having been formed.
It is almost two years, we have still to see any genuine proposal of action to deal with possible two million in Sabah who are holders of Project IC, including their off springs.
Back to MA63, if the Parliament did something ultra vires and illegal by such an unjustified amendment to change the main characteristic of the MA63 of a partnership of 3/4 including Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak, there is nothing to discuss but to restore the status.

MA63 is past discussion mode

Isn’t it very weird that the Prime Minister is so gullible to say that he is ready to discuss MA63 a few days ago in Kota Kinabalu even after 53 years as exacerbated in 13 July1976 when the “guilty” Parliament caused an “earthquake” of the dimension that Sabah and Sarawak became 12 and 13 States in Malaysia. That “earthquake” happened after the plane crash in Kota Kinabalu on 6 June, 1976.

Yet Najib is ready to discuss the Malaysia Agreement 1963 with the Sabah government when the Sabah State Government is not moving in that direction.  So we are really stuck with the “robberies” aplenty since 1963 in all sorts of avenues.

I wonder why are some of the local coalition partners have just awakened on the demand to restore MA63 when they also know it is not working that way.

Is it possible GE14 is just around the corner and Najib was just toying with another development just like it was in GE13 when Najib promised “tough” action in Royal Commission Inquiry on Illegal Immigrants Sabah (RCI IIS) in 2012 just before GE13 in 2013.  Unfortunately, the much delayed manipulated Report on RCI IIS on 4^th December, 2014 with sort of hype is still in dormant mode despite two action committees were formed soon after.  Now it is almost two years, we have still to see any genuine proposal of action to deal with possible 2millions in Sabah are holders of project IC and that is including the off springs after a few decades.

Lets come back to MA63 and if the Parliament did something ultra vires and illegal over MA63 by such an unjustified amendment to change the main feature of the MA63 of a partnership of 3/4 including Malaya, Singapore, Sabah  and Sarawak, then nothing more to discuss but to restore the  status then.

With such an illegal amendment as null and void ab initio, it is only to discuss how much Sabah and Sarawak had suffered massive losses in so many parameters – financial and violations of human rights and whatnots. 

So what if none of the expected restoration is forthcoming, then we know who Malaya is.  There is no escape with such depravity in any nation as the consequences of excessive exploitation without an end hoping to unite the nation.

Don’t find any more excuses to divide the nation with evil intention.

Joshua Y. C. Kong  15 November, 2016

Leave the aesthetic Tanjung Aru Beach alone for posterity

http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/361338

Malaysians, especially Sabahans, must be alerted to this coming “devastation” if the Tanjung Aru Eco Development (TAED) project is carried out by the state body Tanjung Aru Eco Development Sdn Bhd.

I would urge “Stop DHI’s proposal on TAED reclamation/expansion of Tanjung Aru Beach (TAB), Kota Kinabalu, Sabah (Borneo), Malaysia”. For many good reasons, we should not disturb nature too much.

Please don’t compare TAED with other beach front projects like STAR, Sutera Harbour, Segama, Sinsuran, Suria Sabah, Jesselton waterfront, SICC and Oceanus because Tanjung Aru Beach is the last environment bastion, and it deserves to preserved for posterity.

We are fully aware that greater publicity in the mass media had been given to the so-called improvement to TAB when nothing is there for us to intervene as we do not know nature perfectly. So don’t act like God.

Can we produce or reproduce this scenic view for miles by spending RM5 billion in the budget of TAED?

We know we cannot and so leave it as it is, but some minimum improvement would be desirable.

This is my new proposal for Tanjung Aru Beach in Kota Kinabalu. The present scenario and expected consequences are:

1. Stop what (monster) had been proposed by DHI with massive reclamation for a sea-front deep beach (not natural gradual beach) and much extended acreage for Tanjung Aru Eco Development (TAED) from 190 acres to 558 acres (the figures are not certain).

2. There are lots of questions and issues with the TAED project as per DHI, but without a feasibility study.

3. TAED is not an eco project but an economic one, which will fail miserably with tremendous financial complications and losses.

4. There were very little town hall meetings prior to the launch of TAED on Sept 16, 2013, and similarly little and obscured town hall meetings until today, so much so it is deemed a “private and personal” project as we need the third Special Environment Impact Assessment to provide for the various changes that are still very much questioned over three years.

5. Could a state project be headed by a retired/elderly businessman as the chief executive officer in TAED Sdn Bhd? The chief minister has yet to give details in a White Paper.

6. When TAED fails in its commitments, environmental and otherwise, the losses of the project can be up to RM50 billion, to be borne by ordinary taxpayers and consumers, who have nothing to do with TAED.

7. The losses of up to RM50b (all listed in my seven-page submission made on Oct 31, 2016), should be borne by a bank guarantee taken out by TAED Sdn Bhd and all the parties concerned in the promotion of this “doomed” project.

Now, my proposal with the possible ultimate avoidance of losses, including claims for damages and compensation of the state company in business in TAED, amounting to RM50 billion, is to do the following:

8. Do minimum repair (erosion and pollution) to the TAB, environmentally and otherwise, mainly due to the total neglect of the city authorities for 50 years.

9. Improve the greenery habitat (prime land) within the city for the local people, outsiders, tourists and the birds for more fresh air to complement what we get at the TAB.

10. Instead of the massive concrete jungle (commercial/residential) and the questioned golf course (not really environment friendly), we should initiate a Botanic Garden to further promote the greenery habitat for many exotic and endemic plants and trees for all.

11. Some suitable structures and infrastructures to support the Botanic Garden, plus whatever existing features to be retained in pockets of the existing land for heritage consideration.

12. The new proposal should involve many more people with various interests in diversity so that the people would still enjoy a natural beach that is priceless and with easy accessibility, without the devastating financial consequences of an artificial beachfront that cannot be better than the existing one.

Please support the new proposal by signing this petition on Stop DHI’s proposal on Tanjung Aru Eco Dev, Borneo Malaysia in Change.org

Details are also regularly updated on this site in the social media.

Read more: https://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/361338#ixzz4OpGuKvig