29 July 2021: Our Yb DS President will attend the court case starting from tomorrow,26th July – 30th July to be held in Sibu High Court to face a suit by the State Government for defamation.
PSB and the entire people of Sarawak will stand firmly behind the President of PSB because he dares to speak for the people of Sarawak.
(A) What is the subject dispute? Why Dato sri Wong soon Koh was sued by the state government for defamation Because he questioned the Joint Agreement between the state government and Petronas. On behalf of the people of Sarawak, he questioned the following:
(1) Why Petronas is to pay Sarawak government through its subsidiaries in full only RM2 billion instead of what was presented in the budget of RM3.897 billion?
(2) Why Sarawak government agreed to reduce the state sales tax rate imposed on Petronas from the current 5% in phases?
(3) Why all previous agreements made under the Petroleum Development Act 1974 are still valid and enforceable and Petronas is still recognised as having full ownership and control over national oil and gas development in line with the Federal Constitution?
(B) In other words, he questioned the Settlement terms on 3 issues.
1. The amount of only RM2 billion paid by Petronas instead of RM3.897 billion. Why a massive discount.? The derivation or computation of the RM2 billion ?
2. The reduction of rate of sales tax from the present 5% in phases. Why? Particularly when Petronas was already obligated to pay under a court order.
3. He questioned the basis or reason of recognising the Petroleum Development Act to give Petronas full ownership and control over national oil and gas development. He argued that this was in contradiction to the Declaration and the earlier stands taken by the state government.
Earlier, CM had declared that PDA is not relevant.‘ ‘CM is prepared to see Petronas in court’ , ‘fighting Petronas to the last’. The government had initiated a civil suit against Petronas for SST. Then suddenly, the joint statement came as a shock to the people of Sarawak.
(C) The agreement terms are not discussed and disclosed. There was no transparency at all. There was no consultation or discussion among DUN members. No endorsement. It was also not discussed in the DUN Consultative Committee before the release of the Joint Statement.
(D) The settlement must have been reached behind closed doors and came about quietly.
(E) His statement was made in good faith and he is duty bound as a representative of the people of Sarawak to bring up issues that are of public interest and importance and are for the good of the people of Sarawak.Based on what he said, government sued him for defamation .