No more excuses not to resolve MA63 to move on

No more excuses not to resolve MA63 to move on

Sabah as a territory according to the Chief Mnister Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Afdal when he told the State Assembly of the special Committee set up to review the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (DE 13 November, 2018).

MA63 is indeed a great controversy since 1963 as far as Peninsula Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak in Borneo separated by the South China Sea itself also a great controversy with several nations claiming Spratley Island now also challenged by the USA.

MA63 has been an unresolved great controversy when Brunei opted out from the outset and Singapore left or kicked out in August 1965.

MA63 signed by 5 nations namely Great Britain, Singapore, Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak when Sabah and Sarawak were sort of still colonised by Great Britain.

So was MA63 really legal now 56 years later?  No point really to argue on this point as MA63 is still a force to be reckoned with in the formation of Malaysia in both the written agreement and the spirit of that event in 1963.

We are now told of so many layers of questions possibly overlapping since then with the key matters such the emergency power since 1969 and only vacated in 2011.  So what are the various implications if any concerning the major items such as territorial water limit, handing over of Labuan in 1984, amendment of the states in formation of Malaysia vis-à-vis MA63 and national distribution of resources and revenue.

Prior to the amendment of the Federal Constitution, it was stated in the Federal Constitution that the States of the Federation shall be; (a) the States of Malaya, namely, Johore, Kedah, Kelantan. Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Terengganu; and (b) the Borneo States, namely, Sabah and Sarawak and (c) the State of Singapore.

After the amendment in 1976, it was stated in the Federal Constitution that the states of the Federation shall be Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Sabah, Sarawak, Selangor and Trengganu.

Isn’t it that any party that sign any agreement and in this case it is MA63, and for Malaya as a solitary body although Malaya did comprise 11 states and in this aspect the constitutional amendment in 1976 would appear not in order.  Like Sabah and Sarawak were both States (although questioned independence?) and yet they signed MA63 as separate bodies unlike the States of Malaya did not sign the MA63.  In this respect the first Prime Minister of Malaya signed as a single party in MA63 conclusively. No after thought of 1963 then in 1976 when emergency provisions were enforced.

Now in 2018 there is a new term “territory” and how would that be as it was in 1963 and then in 1976?

We know that the Federal Constitution had been amended 57 times with many items of amendments that could add up to more than 700.

So how would it be with the latest proposed amendment of “territory” to Article 1(2) in term of MA63 now in Parliament? Would the 3 partners with equal rights be a reality in the present setting?

Malaya had avoided the equal partners for so long since 1963 with greatest disadvantages to Sabah and Sarawak in all aspects. So how would the implementation be if the past disparities are now restored accordingly? In term of financial parameters, it would be astronomical for Malaysia or Malaya be in a position to fulfil such obligation given that the foreign debts of more than RM1 trillions and still counting and that Petronas is not performing well for decades.

The ultimate question now is MA63 really be negotiable like we see now ? Is the Federal Constitution as amended so many times especially the one in 1976 really a valid document for the people to rely on ?

Assuming Article 1(2) is amended in 2019, would it be business as usual since 1963?

To be very honest we know that it would take a great miracle to change the fortune of oil rich Sabah and Sarawak after 55 years of Malaysia.

I am in particular more concerned with Sabah which is very much now challenged in some areas namely security, financial matters, demographic decadence, deals for illegal people including project IC holders, investments, and many lopsided affairs in Sabah when only in Kota Kinabalu there are some but inadequate opportunities to maintain the proper growth of Sabah. It is likely that Sabah would still receive less than 10% attention from the Federal Government as the impairment of Sabah by the Federal Government aided by ineffective local leaders bordering kleptocracy is really beyond repair.

No doubt, there is a lot of politicking adversely affecting Sabah and now with the questioned entry of Bersatu what is next is anybody guess of this game. Definitely with excessive politicking, the rot of  the “froggy” scenario is inevitable.

The impairment in Sabah would not be reduced as there is no political will to see Sabah to be on par with the Peninsular Malaysia.  We still have only one university after 55 years. Jobs are still lacking with little good industries in Sabah. Rising gaps in disparities in cost of living are obvious for the two regions nationwide.  Larger parts of Sabah especially in the Northern and Eastern urban regions of Sabah are soon to degenerate into “destitute” zones with most struggling people moving to Kota Kinabalu and this is definitely an unhealthy development statewide.  

Pakatan Harapan‘s manifesto 1^st Promise was abolish GST but how many people were aware of Promise 32 out of 60 was: Introduce a tax system that is people-friendly and entrepreneur-friendly but SST is not so friendly to all especially the lower level of  people as costs of living went on unabated. GST at 6% was badly implemented and so is SST. Over regulation can “kill” potentialities in society. GST is definitely a better tax regime if not lopsided in its implementation processes.

PILLAR 4: RETURN SABAH AND SARAWAK TO THE STATUS ACCORDED BY THE MALAYSIA AGREEMENT 1963  Promise 40: Implement the 1963 Malaysia Agreement,  Promise 41: To ensure the prosperity of the people of Sabah and Sarawak by enhancing the states’ economic growth Promise 42: Create more employment opportunities for Sabahan and Sarawakian youths,   Promise 43: Making Sabah and Sarawak a model of harmonious society,  Promise 44: Improving the quality of education and healthcare services,  Promise 45: Advancing the interest of the rural and remote populations,  Promise 46: Protecting the sovereignty and security of Sabah, Promise 47: Decentralisation of power to Sabah and Sarawak, . Promise 48: To return and guarantee the right of customary land of the people of Sabah and Sarawak.

Malaysia Baru can be “hollow” for Sabah and Sarawak  if the Pillar 4 of PH’s manifesto  is ill implemented. Maybe the report of Council of Eminent Persons (CEP) not OSAed can give some enlightenment on this pillar 4.

Maybe with the “territories” in offing, we have Peninsular side and Borneo side with focus on advancement at accelerated pace for the Borneo side and that Pillar 4 of the PH’s manifesto for GE14 with the pledge “rebuilding the nation fulfilling our hopes” be implemented as soon as possible. Lets get the Government and the opposition BN once under Najib with similar promises work it out in the present Parliament session on the “territories” or without that with people fully involved in this.

Joshua Y C Kong 02/04/2019

Petronas is an “elephant” in financial and performance terms

Petronas is an “elephant” in financial and performance terms 

Who is checking the Petronas accounts? (DE letter dated 10 March, 2019) deserves a response. Who can remain silent or indifferent for so long since 1974 with the Petroleum Development Act, 1974?

Actually, I did lodge two Police Reports on Petronas as far as they affect Sabah in all aspects of the oil exploration and the performance thereof.  The two Police Report are (1) Petronas Sabah  KK/rpt/27530/04 on 21 Dec 2004 on Petronas and its performance and impact on the welfare of Sabah. Why has this become an issue after 28 years since 1976? And (2) the Petroleum Development Act and Petronas, PM; National Petroleum Advisory Council L/002072/08 on 11/7/ 08. 

Performance of Petronas based on Sales revenue from 2004 to 2017 of a roller coaster trend from a high of RM329.1billion (2014) to low of RM97.5 b (2004) as listed as RM97.5b (2004) RM137.0b (2005)   RM167.4b (2006)   RM184.1b (2007)   RM223.1b (2008)  RM264.2b (2009)    RM210.8b (2010)  RM241.2b(2011)  RM291.0b (2012)    RM317.5b (2013)  RM329.1b (2014)     RM235.0b (2015) RM195.1b (2016)  RM223.6b (2017). (Source: Petronas website).  It has been rising from 2004 to 2009 and then down in 2010 and up and down until 2017. Who can give the explanation to such inconsistent performance?  Can such extreme volatility happen to any public or private companies and yet remain in business without any issues?  The value of the Ringgit in 2008 (RM223.1b) is not the same as in 2017 (RM223.6b) when purchasing power has greatly declined in 2017 hence any comparison in pure figure can be meaningless in term of performance. 

How accurate, transparent and accountable are the reports without subject to independent scrutiny especially it is now assumed that Petronas had a free hand to do as it liked prior to Company Act 2016 (CA 2016)?  

Since CA 2016, Petronas had posted a note in its website as “The Company and the following subsidiary companies, have been granted a relief order pursuant to Section 255(1) of the Companies Act, 2016 relieving the Directors of the companies form (from?) full compliance to the requirements under Section 253(2) of the Companies Act, 2016” (source: Annual Report 2017).

Also in the website, there is a standard notice restricting the public to use the data of Petronas with legal implication for such use.

So “Who is checking the Petronas accounts?” brings back some hollowness when Section 253 (2) of CA 2016 is an “approved” violation or departure from compliance in good governance. Petronas and its massive group of companies had been audited by a range of public auditors but not supervised by the Auditor General.

On 25^th March, 2019 Institute for Development Studies (IDS) together with G25 Malaysia and C4 held a Sabah Forum on Institutional Governance and Reform of GLCs where the Sabah CM Datuk Seri Shafie Afdal officiated and gave a key note address on such important matters faced by the State and the nation. 

We are aware that Petronas has a governance issue and much reform is needed but nothing is making any headway to deal with the “elephant” in the nation.

So I suggest strongly that a Royal Commission of Inquiry be instituted to look at the following agenda namely its performance for decades without public scrutiny, its affairs with the two major zones of oil in Sabah and Sarawak, the volatility of revenue especially in recent two decades, the noncompliance of PDA 1974 and now the CA 2016 as to the governance, its global connections, its outsourcing and Production Sharing Contracts, Joint Venture Agreements and other commercial undertaking as adverse impact on the gross revenue, various key indicators and debts servicing plus role in public affairs including fair distribution of the corporate social responsibilities.

Joshua Y C  Kong 28/03/2019

TB can be a demographic disaster for Sabah with low local population

TB can be a demographic disaster for Sabah with low local population

There was a recent headline in front page of a local paper (BP) as ”TB vaccination for all” (March 1, 2019) and then a Ministry Of Health declared that only children would be vaccinated (5 March, 2019).

The question begging an answer is that why only in 2019 such drastic action be initiated when it was known back in 2000 as items such as “Serious Rise in Sabah TB (DE 1 April, 2000) and “Sabah has the highest TB cases” (DE 4 July, 2000) were simply ignored by the Government then?

Are we now in a pandemic scenario? I hope the Government should take immediate measure to curb the health menace. Vaccination for adult may not fully address this sort of health crisis or rather the Government set up facilities to detect such cases for curing possibility made easy.

Tuberculosis is caused by bacteria that spread from person to person through microscopic droplets released into the air. This can happen when someone with the untreated, active form of tuberculosis coughs, speaks, sneezes, spits, laughs or sings. Although tuberculosis is contagious, it's not easy to catch.

In some countries, BCG injections are given to children to vaccinate them against tuberculosis. It is not recommended for general use in the U.S. because it is not effective in adults, and it can adversely influence the results of skin testing diagnoses.

The most important thing to do is to finish entire courses of medication when they are prescribed. MDR-TB bacteria are far deadlier than regular TB bacteria. Some cases of MDR-TB require extensive courses of chemotherapy, which can be expensive and cause severe adverse drug reactions in patients.

People with compromised immune systems are most at risk of developing active tuberculosis. For instance, HIV suppresses the immune system, making it harder for the body to control TB bacteria. People who are infected with both HIV and TB are around 20-30 percent more likely to develop active TB than those who do not have HIV.

Tobacco use has also been found to increase the risk of developing active TB. About 8 percent of TB cases worldwide are related to smoking.

Tuberculosis is an infectious disease that usually affects the lungs. Compared with other diseases caused by a single infectious agent, tuberculosis is the second biggest killer, globally.

I would like to share what I personally about two cases – one in my childhood days when an uncle was so cleanliness conscious that he would clean even banana and other fruits skin with soap but it was later reported he died of TB at a young age.

For myself, I think I had BCG as a school boy in Labuan born after the 2^nd World War and that could have saved me the attack of TB in the late 1970s when I was in London.  I came back to Kota Kinabalu in 1980 and a few years later I went back to London looking up for a close colleague who was dead from an advance stage of TB. I was told to have mandatory full check up in the local hospital as I used to share his home in various visits then.

Strangely when I came to the said hospital the nurse came to me with big eyes. Then I had the X-ray and to come back a few days for the result and unfortunately the X-ray film was black also a shock for the nurse. So I had to have a repeat of X-ray within days. The second X-ray came out fine and no treatment was prescribed for me. So I was cleared of TB.  Who can explain how I escaped the death call of TB sort of  miracle?

Would we all now address the “curse” and scourge of TB brought about by the massive presence of PTI in Sabah without fail for the consequence of belated action is unthinkable when TB is the second highest killer globally?

Joshua Y C Kong 6/3/2019