Sabah recommends 40% federal revenue be used for non-disputed items
'We have suggested implementing this 40% on items that are not disputed, such as the taxes collected from the state as a temporary measure,' he said after attending the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) technical committee meeting chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Fadillah Yusof here.
He said these suggestions must not prejudice the final decision on the issues involving the state's claim to the 40% federal tax revenue return to the state as provided under Sections 112C and 112D of the Federal Constitution.
It is understood that the technical committee were cautious due to the Sabah Law Society's (SLS) ongoing High Court case against the federal government over state rights to 40% revenue.
Fadillah said the technical committee meeting on Monday (July 14) was specific to Sabah's claims for its revenue under Sections 112C and 112D only.
He said they were looking at solutions outside the court jurisdiction, seeing that there is an ongoing case by the SLS at the moment.
'There are constraints in making decisions that are under the court's jurisdiction for the time being, so we must find solutions to areas outside the court's jurisdiction,' he explained.
Fadillah said that this special technical meeting in Sabah is specific to the needs and claims in Sabah, and would be followed up with another technical meeting with Sarawak.
He said an MA63 action council meeting to discuss Sabah and Sarawak's rights is scheduled to be held on Sept 12 in Kuala Lumpur.
Earlier, he said that the suggestions from Sabah will be conveyed to the Prime Minister for consideration, and whether they will be adopted as an interim measure.
The SLS court case e-review is set to be heard at the Kota Kinabalu High Court on Aug 7.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
4 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Ex-soldier loses appeal over dismissal for refusing Covid-19 jab
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal today dismissed a former soldier's appeal against his termination from the Malaysian Armed Forces for refusing the Covid-19 vaccination. The three-member bench led by Justice Datuk Azimah Omar ruled that there was no illegality or procedural impropriety on the part of the respondents in dismissing Wan Ramli Wan Seman from service. "The court is of the view that the appeal is without merit and therefore, dismissed," she said. No order as to costs was made. Sitting with her were Justices Datuk Wong Kian Kheong and Datuk Ismail Brahim. Wan Ramli, 43, was appealing against the High Court's 2023 dismissal of his judicial review challenging the decision of the respondents. In his judicial review, Wan Ramli had named Lt-Col Sharull Hesham Md Yasin, Lt Mohamad Azammunir Mohd Ashri, Army Chief General Tan Sri Zamrose Mohd Zain, the Malaysian Armed Forces, and the Malaysian Government as respondents. He sought a certiorari order to quash the termination letter dated Aug 4, 2021, which discharged him from service, and a declaration that the discharge letter was null and void. He claimed that the dishonourable discharge had caused him to lose his right to a pension under Article 147 of the Federal Constitution. Wan Ramli also argued that his dismissal was invalid as it was disproportionate in the circumstances, oppressive, irrational, unreasonable, amounted to unlawful discrimination, and took into account irrelevant considerations. Then High Court judge Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid (now a Court of Appeal judge) had ruled that the decision to discharge Wan Ramli was lawful and not tainted with illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. At today's hearing, Wan Ramli was represented by lawyer Hafiz Norkhan, while senior federal counsel Nurhafizza Azizan and federal counsel Solehheen Mohammad Zaki appeared for the respondents.
Free Malaysia Today
5 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
High Court upholds RM780,000 awarded to sacked exec
The High Court in George Town, Penang, upheld an earlier decision by the Industrial Court. GEORGE TOWN : The High Court here has upheld an Industrial Court's decision awarding nearly RM800,000 in back wages and compensation to a senior employee of a semiconductor firm who was wrongfully dismissed in 2018. The High Court's decision will see Kon Siang Boon, a former global account manager at Molex (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, retaining the RM789,333.58 awarded to him by the Industrial Court last year. The High Court also ordered the company to pay RM7,500 in costs. Justice Anand Ponnudurai, in his ruling today, said there was no error of law in the Industrial Court's findings, and that the court had rightfully preferred Kon's version of events over the company's, based on the credibility of witnesses. Kon, who had been attached with the company for nearly 30 years, was accused of making fraudulent claims while on a business trip, which Molex claimed breached company policy, and was subsequently sacked in 2018 after a domestic inquiry. The Industrial Court, however, found the dismissal unjustified and procedurally flawed. At the time of his dismissal, he was earning over RM21,000 a month, with bonuses and allowances. According to the facts of the case, from 2016 to November 2017, Kon submitted meal and transport claims under the prevailing company travel policy, which were all approved by his superiors. Molex revised this policy on Nov 1, 2017, to bar meal claims. However, the Industrial Court found that this revised policy had not been clearly communicated to Kon. The court accepted Kon's testimony that he only became aware of the new rules in December 2017 and had stopped making such claims after that. In delivering his ruling, Anand said the Industrial Court's decision was reasonable and backed by detailed analysis.
The Star
7 hours ago
- The Star
Private doctors file lawsuit against government over medicine price display regulation
PETALING JAYA: Doctors from the private sector are suing the government over the rule governing the display of medicine prices. This comes after several private practitioners filed for judicial review on July 24 against the government in the Kuala Lumpur High Court. The application was filed on Tuesday (July 29) by the Association of Private Practitioners, Sabah (APPS), the Malaysian Medical Association (MMA), the Malaysian Association for the Advancement of Functional and Interdisciplinary Medicine (Maafim), the Organisation of Malaysian Muslim Doctors (Perdim), the Federation of Private Medical Practitioners Associations Malaysia (FPMPAM), the Malaysian Private Dental Practitioners' Association (MPDPA), the Society of Private Medical Practitioners Sarawak (SPMPS) and one Dr Saifulbahri Ahmad. The lawsuit was in relation to the Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking for Drug) Order 2025, which came into effect on May 1. The Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister, the Health Minister and the government of Malaysia were named as the first, second and third respondents respectively. The medical practitioners are seeking an order of certiorari to quash the Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Ministry's Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Making for Drug) Order 2025, which is also the impugned order in this case. As part of the relief, they are also seeking a declaration that the impugned order is void as it is 'tainted with illegality, irrationality and unreasonableness, disproportionality and impropriety.' 'The enforcement of the Impugned Order, insofar as its application to private healthcare facilities and/or registered medical practitioners and dentists, be stayed until full disposal of the Applicants' application for judicial review,' read the statement of the claim of the case. Among the grounds for judicial review is the government's failure to recognise the difference between drugs sold by retail and those administered for treatment. It also added that the Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister had breached principles of natural justice by arriving at the decision without consulting registered medical practitioners represented by the MMA. They said that while the purpose of the regulation was to curb profiteering activities, it has created unwarranted competition among drug providers, with the sole focus being the price of drugs. 'This means even small-scale community clinics operated by general practitioners (GPs) and specialists have to now compete with large-scale drug retailers, for example, international chain pharmacies who already enjoy a larger market control and the ability to gain further control of retail customers by selling drugs at a much lower price,' they said adding that small scale community clinics would be at a disadvantage if forced to enter into an unwarranted competition with large-scale pharmaceutical companies. They said that drug prices in clinics are determined by variables such as manufacturers, freight charges, import or export duties, importers, distributors, volume purchased, the location of the clinics, different formulations of the same product, provisions for wastage of expired or unused drugs and staff and administrative expenses. The price display rule that came into effect on May 1 was met with much resistance by private healthcare practitioners. A three-month grace period has also been given, where no compounds would be issued and the government would instead focus on advocacy and education. The case management has been set for Aug 22.
