==> Pls visit new site at http://malaysia-today.net/ <==

To begin with, I am not a road-sweeper.

It seems there is a misunderstanding with confusion over the role and legal status of Petronas.

In the 1st place, Petronas was formed by a Charter clearly spelled out in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia by the Federal Government of Malaysia in the early days after its independence on its role, fields of operation with its obligations answerable only to the Federal Government in the payments of royalty, taxes, fees etc to cover its operations in the national territory of Malaysia with jurisdiction to cover all the States in Malaysia and with due taxes from incomes from its oil and gas operations outside Malaysia.

The Charter on the creation of Petronas in the Federal Constitution has clearly and legally stated Petronas has only to deal with the Federal Government and it has nothing to do with each individual State in Malaysia.

In view of the above, it is the sole responsibility of the Federal Government to deal with each individual State over financial entitlement to the particular State including Penang and Malacca according to the Federal Constitution.

Besides, with the endorsed Charter, Petronas is a legal entity to operate independently by its permitted fields, it could enter other investments with its own funds such as the putting up of Twin-Tower, Putrajaya etc.

I hope that I am not wrong in such explanation on the confused issue even though I have been away from Malaysia for several y

Comments (21)

...
written by Flex Tan, April 07, 2008 10:27:30

"obligations answerable only to the Federal Government" ... NOT EVEN TO THE PARLIMENT OF MALAYSIA ???

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 28

...
written by middlepath, April 07, 2008 10:33:12

Paklah oppose for the sake of opposing, and he oppose because this come from DAP LGE. CM of Pg LGE, should knonw in future, dont talk openly, need to go beyond the usually channel to get this role out, politically LGE is right, but this way, he cant get the PM to agree with him.
Anyway, BN and Umno and this PM will be obsolete looking at how they handle defeat. As anybody in this world, when you face with defeat and setback, if we point the finger out, 3 fingers point back at us. So, BN and umno is history, and they continue to bahave like that. Petronas should invest in whatever project that can make $ and help the pubic, so, Penang 2nd link is a good project. unless they dont like cash flow.
chane the gov, then we can change the future of malaysia.

report abuse

disagree 2

agree 35

...
written by Wisdom above, April 07, 2008 11:00:22

How to use Federal Constitution Article 99 & 100 to reallocate monies to fund 2nd Penang bridge ?

All 82 BR MPS should scrutinised these 2 provisions.

Syabas. Barisan Rakyat.....Malaysia Bersatu.( Malaysia United )

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 20

...
written by Commonsenses, April 07, 2008 11:01:17

As everyone say right up to TDM, the current PM is incompetent. So he does not know the law. His people are also stupid. He is in denial, now and forever.

report abuse

disagree 3

agree 17

...
written by Ranulaw, April 07, 2008 12:10:33

James

I think everyone knows Petronas answers only to the PM or the Federal Gomen if u wish to call it. LGE is in no position to demand the funding from Petronas but merely to consider this as a possibility. This is similar to the rakyat asking the Gomen not to raise petrol pump prices but knowing fully well it is still the decision of the Gomen.

"Petronas is a legal entity to operate independently by its permitted fields, it could enter other investments with its own funds such as the putting up of Twin-Tower, Putrajaya etc." u wrote, clearly gives Petronas the authority to do such funding since everyone expects a toll to be collected for the use of the bridge & therefore it is an investment for Petronas with returns in the form of toll collection.

There may be other use for Petronas funds or good reasons not to fund the 2nd bridge to Penang but so far, I have not heard any other than the Federal Gomen does not approve. Even a child will ask, why?? If the Chinese are willing to fund it, why not Petronas?

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 28

...
written by archie, April 07, 2008 12:57:22

"Besides, with the endorsed Charter, Petronas is a legal entity to operate independently by its permitted fields......."

Bailing out of politically connected firms must be one of such "permitted fields".

Type "Petronas bail out" on Yahoo search and 103,000 itmes will appear on the computer screen. I particularly like the one on Asia Times which says that "(Petronas) was often used as a piggy bank to bail out a flock of politically connected banks and other firms, the national airline Malaysia Airline (MAS), the limping national car company Proton, and a variety of controversial projects of various and dubious utility".

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 15

...
written by malsia1206, April 07, 2008 13:04:56

Mr. Long, your experience in Eastern Africa nor your testimonial with other other Middle East papers have any relevance on this subject. Are you able to state categorically whether Petronas, since it charter, has never used or utilised their funds for purposes other that what it was originally set up for? It's accountablity to the federal government is never in doubt but that does not necessarily imply it has a clean slate on how and in what manner it had expended its revenue for the past decades. If they are empowered by their operations to expend for the Twin Towers and Putrjaya under the times of the former PM, pray tell the rakyat what's there to stop them for paying for the new Penang Bridge? Surely it's not because they do not have that entity power but only because the present PM directs them not to. But Petronas had came up with a different explanation. So is Petronas trying to pull the wool over the rakyat's eyes and their funds are at the whims of the PM to spend at his wish?

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 15

...
written by Bandit, April 07, 2008 13:34:38

In other way in means Petronas belongs to the Government of the day and UMNO being the swollen headed ones has assumed that they will always have control over this milking cow. Petronas doesnt even belong to the people of Malaysia. Nowonder these blokes in BN have made it possible to remain in power for the last 50 years to ensure this cow does not slip away. How can this be undone?
Next is the Highway "tol" collections. We know that the money ends up in UMNO's coffers. How I wish BN was wiped out the last elections...? Gosh...

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 6

...
written by delCapo, April 07, 2008 13:46:32

the explanation is noted and valued.

Thats precisely the reason LGE is requesting for Petronas to fund the bridge.
If Petronas is already obliged to fund such projects, or is obliged to listen to State govenments directly.... Do you think LGE can be bothered to ask that sleepy bugger of a PM??

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 7

...
written by Balasundaram, April 07, 2008 13:54:12

Dear James,

A road sweeper you are most assuredly not. However, i am constrained to ask, "What Chaarter are you talking of? "

Is not Petronas, a government owned company under the Companies Act formed pursuant to the Petroleum Development Act, 1974?

Are you shooting you mouth off? You appear to be.

So mush for your creentials !!!

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 5

...
written by Balasundaram, April 07, 2008 13:55:46

sorry. mush = much

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

...
written by Ben Nordin, April 07, 2008 14:20:28

Meaning, the Federal Government cannot just say that it's up to Petronas to decide but it's the Federal Government's duty to get the funds from Petronas to assist in the development of any state in Malaysia. Otherwise it appears that the FederL Government is shortchanging the states under the rule of PR.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 4

...
written by mwaalib, April 07, 2008 14:25:15

This won't be a problem if Opposition manages to acquire majority seats. So work hard on it, otherwise the public will not have the maximum benefit of any changes.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 6

...
written by Tlau, April 07, 2008 14:27:38

In other words, Petronas belongs to UMNO Am I right? James. If Petronas can enter into other investments with its own fund, why not the Penang 2nd bridge, I can almost certainly say it will 100% generates profit, unlike the white elephant like the Putrajaya.

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 12

...
written by Kcc, April 07, 2008 14:39:26

PETRONAS is rich enough to fund any project. If they can fund the F1 racers and the team which cost millions, if they can fund the building of a race circuit in Sepang, I don't see why it can't fund or at least give a subsidy for the second Penang Bridge.

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 9

...
written by mgeo, April 07, 2008 14:41:05

Who was lying when we were told China was financing this bridge?

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 5

...
written by insignificant_one, April 07, 2008 15:42:44

In other words, Petronas will fund project ordered by the PM and Umno and no one else.
Smart of them to get a Chinese to explain as Malays and Umno are too synonymous.
Less projects mean more left-over for the taking - distribute goodies to fellow members of the same flock.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 9

...
written by Wudan, April 07, 2008 16:57:48

Is not Petronas, a government owned company under the Companies Act formed pursuant to the Petroleum Development Act, 1974?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A company may be incorporated under the Companies Act 1965 of Malaysia or by an Act of Parliament and hence its 'Charter', the Petroleum Development Act, 1974.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 3

...
written by tkahyap, April 07, 2008 20:45:12

chairman mao?? track record of writing letters?? this guy's a nutcase..and you guys look foolish arguing over what he said

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 1

...
written by Eskay Lim, April 07, 2008 22:13:41

If Petronas can fund the building of KL Twin-Towers, be the main sponsor of the annual Formula-One races and the development of Putrajaya, I don't see any reason why Petronas can't finance the construction of the Penang 2nd. bridge.
Are the directors of Petronas so dumb as not to see the viability of this bridge project? Why can't they consider this bridge purely as a business venture?
Obviously this project is going to be a cash-cow, to generate a big profit through the collection of toll. Or is the govt. creating another opportunity for some crony-company to be appointed the concessionaire to reap the huge profits?

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 1

...
written by PenangHokkienKia, April 08, 2008 11:02:14

Hello...KL Ah Long,
Go fly kites....far far away from here lah. This Petronas belongs to Rakyat Malaysia... and should be returned to the people!

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0