[ad_1]
Datuk Lawrence Lai
MIRI: The agreement between the Sarawak government and Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) on the imposition of the state sales tax (SST) has raised more questions to be answered, says lawyer Datuk Lawrence Lai.
The former mayor of Miri said the state government must address the issue since the “agreement” refers to the rights of the Sarawakians.
“In the joint statement of May 7, it was mentioned that both parties were withdrawing their legal claims against each other.
“This is puzzling because the Kuching High Court had dismissed Petronas’ appeal on March 13 and ordered Petronas to pay the SST.” Is the decision of the Kuching High Court still valid and applicable? Lai said when he was contacted yesterday.
He said the statement also mentioned that the Sarawak government had agreed to withdraw its claim against Petronas to recover the SST, but wondered what the terms and conditions agreed by the state would be.
“Does this mean that the Sarawak government will give up its claim for a future SST against Petronas? What happens if Petronas stops paying RM2 billion or any future payments? Has the Sarawak government agreed to give up its rights to sue Petronas for SST?
Lai further questioned whether the payment by Petronas is based on a consent trial or an out-of-court settlement.
“If it is an out-of-court settlement, why is it necessary when the Sarawak government won its court case against Petronas? It would have saved time (first) simply opting for an out-of-court settlement for SST, ”he said.
He then called on the Sarawak government to “enlighten” people about its agreement to reduce the SST rate imposed on Petronas by phases of the current five percent, especially considering that the state had won its case against the corporation.
“What would the reduction in the phases be like and what is the percentage that we are talking about? Does it apply only to Petronas or other oil and gas companies as well?
Lai expected Petronas to list the details of his RM2 billion SST payment to the state, as if it included fines, accrued interest, legal fees, court costs and others.
He said that as a concerned Sarawakian, he also wanted to know if the corporation will pay the SST claim by 2020, or if the agreed payment is the total and final payment of all SST claims from the Sarawak government.
He also felt it necessary to separate the Petroleum Mining Ordinance (OMO) from the status of the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) of 1974 that was mentioned in the joint statement, to avoid confusion among the public.
“I do not see the relevance of PDA 1974 for the settlement of the Sarawak government’s SST claims against Petronas.
“The SST is supposed to be (imposed) under the state’s Petroleum Mining Ordinance (OMO), therefore the (state) government must fully explain its position on whether they admit and accept the legality and validity of PDA 1974 and the fact that Petronas has legal ownership and controls over Sarawak’s oil and gas.
“If the answer is ‘no’ to my question about PDA 1974, it would be good to reveal the clause included in the joint statement with Petronas to give a clearer picture to the people of Sarawak,” said Lai.
[ad_2]
