UNITED BORNEO Front Chairman Datuk Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan told the High Court upon Tuesday which the oil agreement in in between Sabah as well as the Federal supervision is invalid as there were no negotiations in in between them.
In relation to this, Kitingan, 64, additionally told Judge Dato's Abdul Rahman Sebli which he tended to hold which there was coercion as well as vigour from the Federal Government.
Kitingan, who is additionally chairman of the Common Interest Group of Malaysia (Cigma) the non-governmental organisation, was asked about his press matter which he done after in attendance the speak by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah upon the topic of 'Minyak Sabah untuk Siapa' upon April 2, 2010 during KDCA Penampang.
He pronounced he rebuilt the statement, which among others, called for the probe or re-investigation in to the air pile-up which killed Tun Fuad Stephens as well as others upon board the Nomad aircraft 35 years ago as well as which he thought the oil kingship agreement might be void, for announcement in the alternative media.
According to him, the matter was done following the revelation relating to the air pile-up tragedy of Jun 6, 1976 by Tengku Razaleigh upon April 2, 2010, which disturbed him, after contention with his people as well as activists.
Kitingan was test! ifying the s the defendants' sixth declare during examination-in-chief by warn Datuk Simon Shim in the hearing of the suit opposite Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) as well as the Presid! ent Datu k Yong Teck Lee which was brought by former Chief Minister Tan Sri Harris Salleh opposite the defendants for obsequious which he was concerned in causing the Double Six tragedy upon Jun 6, 1976.
Harris, represented by warn Yunof Maringking as well as Trevor Maringking, is claiming ubiquitous damages, aggravated as well as exemplary indemnification of not less than RM50 million from Yong, who he declared as initial defendant as well as SAPP as second defendant, for libel.
Shim: Can we explain to the justice given we consider the oil agreement might be void?
Kitingan: From this brand brand new information, it seems to me which there have been so most unanswered questions, so most doubts which lead me to hold which if we put together this disbelief as well as this question! , we be solitaire to consternation given the oil agreement was not sealed in Labuan, given the little people left the craft opposite protocol, given the craft mysteriously crashed, given sure people left the craft usually to see the cattle farm, given this pronounced people survived to pointer the agreement, given the agreement was rushed to be sealed given the tragedy of such magnitude, given didn't the State supervision take the opportunity to bring this to the State Legislative Assembly or the Cabinet prior to it was signed.
"It seemed to me which when we demeanour during the total unfolding before, in in in between as well as after the incident, it gives we the feeling which something is during fool around here, meaning, could the State supervision be underneath vigour to stoop to the demand of the Federal Government.
"If so, have been we being coerced in to signing the agreement which we do not wish to sign. If we consider about this, given would any State supervision or leader wish to surrender or give divided elemental state appa! ratus du ring 5 per cent?
Don't we consider this is ridiculous, where is the negotiation?
I have not listened of any traffic about the oil agreement in in between the State as well as Federal government.
"If we demeanour during the Petroleum Development Act, Article 4, the money remuneration to the Federal supervision or the State supervision is theme to agreement in in between the parties, meaning, we should come to terms as well as as we pronounced before, it would be stupid of the State to simply determine to give divided this elemental State apparatus called oil as well as gas during merely during the remuneration of 5 per cent.
"And not usually which most stupid in further to this, given would the State supervision in this agreement which they sealed even relinquish the 5 per cent kingship i.e. fundamentally be there already, which means we not usually give divided the oil resources though we additionally give divided the ro! yalty of 5 per cent as well as accepted the money remuneration of 5 per cent when we could have 10 per cent even if we have given divided the oil for 5 percent money payment.
"So, given of this, we tend to hold which there is coercion as well as vigour from the Federal supervision which lead me to say which this agreement is invalid as well as we am not surprised of this Federal fool around given it has happened most times before."
Shim: From your understanding of the oil revenue in Sabah, is the kingship remuneration fixed by Parliament or statute?
Kitingan: The kingship remuneration is fixed by the money remuneration over the oil is not though to be concluded in in between the parties according to Article 4 of the Petroleum Development Act. There have been dual separate issues.
Kitingan: No as well as we do not wish to mention the word kingship remuneration given it is not called royalty. The remuneration or money remuneration to owners of the apparatus is to be concluded upon in in between the parties, definition that, it has to be negotiated as well as we understand from speaking to the late Tun Mustapha which they did not determine to the 5 per cent though they had demanded the aloft percentage as well as we consider for this, we need to refer to Cabinet papers.
Earlier, Kitingan pronounced the Double Six tragedy was some-more than the historical event given it was the tragedy of the huge proportion which not usually influenced the family groups of the pile-up victims though additionally influenced the State as well as the future of the people.
Shim: The situation happened so long ago, given have been we still interested to know what happened as well as do we have anything to do with which incident?
Kitingan: Because there has been so most unanswered questions.
This is the big tragedy involving half the Cabinet ministers as well as they were ostensible to be in Labuan to pointer an oil agreement as well as from what we know, the agreement was not sealed as well as there was the crash, together with the Chief Minister, who was ostensible to pointer the agreement.
"And then one week after it was sealed by the next Chief Minister, who took over, who was not in which craft as well as who invited the Petronas arch - the alternative party to the agreement out of the craft to an additional plane.
So won't we wish to know? Would which not lift so most questions?
! Wo uld which not lead to so most speculations? Some might even speculate which this situation might have been planned differently given would this tragedy happen?
"Why was the agreement not signed? Why the little people went out of the plane? Why was the agreement rushed when the State as well as the family groups (of the victims) were still in mourning?"
Kitingan additionally pronounced the brand brand new report as suggested by Tengku Razaleigh merited the brand brand new investigation in to the incident.
Meanwhile, during interrogate by the plaintiff's counsel, he disagreed with Yunof when asked which based upon Section 2 of the Act, either he concluded which Parliament had upheld the Act as well as vested tenure of petroleum either onshore or offshore of Malaysia onto Petronas as well as thus it would be as well late in the day for Sabahans to cry over spilled milk.
In this question, Kitingan was referred to the Petroleum Development Act 1974 - Section 2 as well as Section 4.
Yunof: Put which given the tenure of petroleum onshore or offshore of Sabah had already been vested in to Petronas by virtue of this Act, there was no need to scapegoat so most leaders in order to force Sabah to pointer or accept the 5 per cent money remuneration underneath the agreement which was ostensible to have been sealed upon Jun 6, 1976. Do we agree?
Kitingan: No, we do not determine given according to Section 4 of the same Act, with regard to the money remuneration by the corporation, it says which such remuneration to the Federal supervision definition which it has nonetheless to be decided, concluded as well as negotiated as well as we consider this is absolutely critical which the 5 per cent is not nonetheless motionless underneath this Act as well as thus we do not determine which by vest! ing the resources to the Petronas, it automatically takes divided the State tenure as well as the rights to this resource.
"Remember, which we came in to the Federation of Malaysia based upon sure conditions as well as rights as incorporated in the Malaysia Agreement which embody underneath Article 8 of which agreement, rights of the State, promises done to the State as well as assurances done to the State together with those conditions referred to in the twenty Points."
Yunof: Do we determine with me which it was the error of the Members of Parliament, who upheld the flitting of the Act to give discretionary energy to Petronas in fixing the volume of remuneration to the State which is right away becoming an ongoing domestic issu! e?
Kitingan: we do not determine given the flitting of the Petroleum Development Act alone or by itself take divided the rights of traffic as we pronounced underneath Article 4 of the same Act shows really obviously which the volume of money remuneration to the State or Federal Government has to be concluded in in between the parties as well as so which is given it has become the really critical ongoing dispute politically.
The defendants have so distant called 6 witnesses to attest together with Kitingan.
The initial defendant, Yong as well as Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, have been approaching to attest upon December 22, 23, 28, twenty-nine as well as 30.
- Sabahkini
Read More @ SourceUcapan Penggulungan Presiden "Objektif Perhimpunan Agung "Pakatan Rakyat" 2011 Tercapai" - Najib
More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
No comments:
Post a Comment