Defence calls first witness in Wong’s defamation suit
SIBU: Batu Lintang assemblyman See Chee How told the High Court here yesterday that he did not agree that Petronas and the State Sales Tax (SST) are not part of Consultative Committee negotiations in connection with the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
Testifying in the defamation suit brought against Parti Sarawak Bersatu (PSB) president Dato Sri Wong Soon Koh by the state government, See disagreed with counsel for the plaintiff, Dato Sri JC Fong, that the matter was not in the terms of reference of the Consultative Committee.
Asked why, See replied: “Because the question of State Sales Tax (SST) and enforcement of state laws relating to oil and gas, such as Oil Mining Ordinance or SST Ordinance are matters within the Malaysia Agreement 1963.”
The consultative committee and an MA63 steering committee were formed to resolve issues connected to state rights.
Fong: So, the Consultative Committee will refer these questions to the Sarawak representatives to the MA63 committee as stated in the terms of reference of the Consultative Committee, agree?
See: I agree.
Fong: So based on the terms of reference of the Consultative Committee and the mandate of that committee, the Consultative Committee is not authorised by DUN to discuss or negotiate directly with Petronas on these questions, agree?
See: Not only the Consultative Committee is not authorised by DUN to negotiate directly with Petronas, the Sarawak representatives to the MA63 committee are not given or authorised by DUN to negotiate with Petronas as well. Any members or issues concerning the discussion or negotiation with Petronas which is part of the matter under MA63 have to go through the Consultative Committee and DUN.
Fong: When you talked about Sarawak representatives to MA63 committee, are these representatives not members of the executive branch of the State Government.
See: They are members of the executive branch of the State Government. However, with the resolution or motion that was passed by DUN in November 2018, the executive branch was not given the authority by the Legislative Assembly to go on with the discussion and negotiation or reach agreement with Petronas on their own, without coming back to DUN to seek the permission of the DUN.
Fong: In Q&A of your witness statement that the contents of the Joint Press Statement ‘relating to the negotiation and settlement between Petronas and the Plaintiff should be made known to the consultative committee’. Is there any resolution passed by DUN or any rule of law that before the Joint Statement was issued on 8th May, 2020 requiring the negotiation and settlement with Petronas must be referred to the Consultative Committee?
See: All matters relating to the MA63 be it negotiation, discussion or settlement, must go through the Consultative Committee which has the duty to report back to the DUN as required under the standing order. I believe it is 78, to get the mandate from DUN. That was the purpose of the ministerial motion that was passed in DUN in November 2018.
Meanwhile, See, who is the first witness to be called by the defence, told the court that he was not sure whether the Petronas payment of RM2.95 billion to the state government was the full SST for the year 2019.
“Because we were given the impression that SST from the crude oil and liquefied natural gas should amount to RM3.897 billion and we all knew that Petronas will have to bear the bulk of SST.
“So in this case, when it was stated in the joint statement that there is a settlement with the payment of RM2 billion, we are all curious,” he said, referring to a joint statement issued by the state government and Petronas on the matter.
When Fong asked whether he knew that Petronas was given a massive discount on SST, he said that was the reason why he wanted to find out from DUN.
He believed that if his motion went to the debate in DUN, the truth would come out and all members would be given an opportunity to ask questions.
However, his motion was rejected and had to first go to the Consultative Committee.
He also said that he did not complain about the massive discount during the Consultative meeting on June 10, 2020 as he believed that the answer would come out from the ministers and those who might know.
He also believed that the figure RM3.987 billion was an estimate when the Budget 2019 was presented to DUN.
“But it would be the actual figure when Budget 2020 was presented to the DUN,” he said.
However, as an opposition member of DUN, he said was not privy as to how the estimated figure came about.
He also said that Wong, who was the Second Finance Minister, did not provide any details on how the amount of RM3.897 billion was estimated during his speech at DUN on Nov 13, 2018.
He also did not clarify with Wong how the figure was arrived at. In the suit, the state government claims that Wong had defamed it in a statement issued on May 9 which questioned the settlement with Petronas on the SST. It is suing Wong, who is also Bawang Assan assemblyman and a former state minister, for RM5 million.
The trial continues today.