Academia blamed for hijack of

history
Tracy Patrick
Free Malaysia Today |

MA63 activist Zainnal Ajamain says academics have allowed politicians to

commandeer the nation's learning institutions.

KOTA KINABALU: A political activist has accused academics in the country of

shirking their duty of ensuring that the authentic version of Malaysian history is
taught in schools and tertiary institutions.

Zainnal Ajamain, who has written books dealing with the Malaysia Agreement of
1963 (MA63), said K S Jomo was right when he recently criticised peninsula-
based politicians for being clueless about East Malaysians needs, but added that
the economist should have also taken academics to task.

We must point fingers at academics who have allowed politicians to hijack the
institutions of higher learning in the country, he told FMT.

1
He said the hijacking had led to the teaching of a warped version of Malaysian
history.

Zainnal claimed to have learned that most Malaysians had not heard about or
read the MA63 in its entirety.

He added that none of the universities in the country encouraged students to

learn about the formation of Malaysia.

The academics have allowed the real history to be totally erased from the minds
of intellectuals in universities and from secondary schools and primary schools,
he said.

The history we read today teaches our sons and daughters the prominence of
Malaya and whatever civilisations it had there, while the contributions of Sabah
and Sarawak are purposely forgotten.

Perhaps Jomo did not realise that Malaysia is no longer run on the basis of
federalism but as a unitary state.

Last Nov 4, Jomo told a forum in Kuala Lumpur that Barisan Nasional as well as
opposition parties were insensitive to the needs and aspirations of East
Malaysians and practically clueless about how the majority of the people in
Sabah and Sarawak felt.

He claimed that peninsular politicians had never seriously dealt with the realities
of federalism and never fully recognised that Sabah and Sarawak joined
Malaysia on terms that were different from the terms for peninsular states.

Zainnal, who is also an economist, said MA63 had been breached in several
ways over more than five decades.

Both sides of the political divide in Malaysia currently believe that Parliament is
supreme, he said. They no longer hold to the precept that the Federal
Constitution is supreme. So Parliament can pass any law it likes even when
these laws are unconstitutional.

2
Jomo: Peninsula politicians clueless
about East Malaysians needs
freemalaysiatoday.com |

KUALA LUMPUR: There is a major disconnect between peninsula-based parties

and the people of Sabah and Sarawak, says Jomo Kwame Sundaram.

The prominent economist said Barisan Nasional as well as opposition parties,

like DAP and PAS, were insensitive to the needs and aspirations of East
Malaysians.

They are quite clueless about how the majority of the people in Sabah and
Sarawak feel, Jomo told reporters after a forum.

Earlier, Jomo said that Peninsular Malaysian politicians had never seriously dealt
with the realities of federalism.

These parties, he said, never fully recognised that Sabah and Sarawak joined
Malaysia on different terms than other states of the Federation of Malaya.

Thats why Peninsular Malaysian parties who go to Sabah and Sarawak get
angry with what they consider to be the stupidity of the natives.

3
Its because they do not recognise the different terms and they deal with the
natives there similar to how they deal with the Orang Asli, here. Its a complete
misreading of the situation.

The former United Nations assistant secretary-general for Economic

Development pointed out that for many years, Sabah and Sarawak provided a lot
of resources for Malaysia that should be recognised.

Unfortunately, he said, this has not happened.

However, he noted that Adenan Satem, who was the chief minister from 2014
until his death in January this year, had captured the imagination of the
Sarawakians by responding to several issues that were dear to the locals.

This included recognising the United Examinations Certificate (UEC) as an

acceptable entrance qualification for public colleges, universities and the public
service as well as making English an official language of the state.

The opposition must acknowledge that they need to do things differently and
treat them (Sabahans and Sarawakians) differently.

Politicians from East Malaysia, especially those from the opposition have
accused the current government of ignoring and violating the Malaysia
Agreement 1963 or MA63.

MA63 sets out the terms and conditions in which Sabah, Sarawak and briefly
Singapore agreed to merge with the Federation of Malaya to form Malaysia.

4
Why peninsular states arent equal to
Sarawak and Sabah
freemalaysiatoday.com |

KOTA KINABALU: Sabah rights activist Zainnal Ajamain has sought to correct
what he says is the erroneous belief that the status of the East Malaysian states
can be reduced to the level of the individual peninsular states by amending the
Federal Constitution.

Speaking to FMT, he noted that attempts to do so had been made more than 600
times since 1963 but the terms of the Malaysia Agreement (MA63) still held.
Neither could the peninsular states demand the same rights that Sabah and
Sarawak were demanding because they were not party to MA63, he said.
Furthermore, he added, the peninsular states were not considered in the Inter-
Governmental Committee (IGC) Report of 1962 as being entitled to rights that
were equal to those of the East Malaysian states.

These states, under the Federation of Malaya, gave up their power to the central
government, he said.

The Federation of Malaya, which was formed in 1957, is a unitary state,

controlled by the central government. On the other hand, when Malaysia was

5
formed, it was an agreement between the United Kingdom, the Federation of
Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak.

It was meant to be a federation of states with Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak as

equal partners of Malaya.

The central government of that federation, he said, acted on behalf of the

Malayan states, having been given full power over their sovereignty.

He referred to a suit the Kelantan government brought against the MA63 and
Malaysia Act just days before the Malaysian Federation came into being. One of
the arguments put forward by Kelantan was that the Malaysia Act in effect
abolished the Federation of Malaya.

Zainnal said the failure of the suit was proof that the Federation of Malaya still
existed.

He said Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore gave up their powers with conditions
that were stipulated under the Malaysia Agreement, an international treaty that
cannot be simply revoked or deemed irrelevant 54 years later.

Any attempt to change the agreement, he said, must get the consent of all
signatories of the agreement.

The only time the agreement was ever changed since it was signed on July 9,
1963, was on Aug 28, 1963, and this was in order to change its effective date
from Aug 31 to Sept 16.

All parties can change the agreement, he said. They can add or take away any
of the 53 rights afforded to Sabah and Sarawak, as written in the agreement.

That is not the problem. The problem is who will represent the Federation of
Malaya? The current federal government is not the government of the Federation
of Malaya. It is the government of the Federation of Malaysia.

So, if they want to go back to the discussion table, reinstate the Federation of
Malaya first. And I think once that is done, then the people can see things more
clearly and their understanding will hopefully be better.

With the restoration of the Federation of Malaya, he said, then all parties could
agree to write a new federal constitution. He noted that this was what the
Malaysia Agreement instructed the federal government to do.

Since Singapore has left Malaysia, it is no longer a party to the agreement and,
therefore, does not need to be included in any effort to amend it.

6
The answer is not amending the current constitution because it cannot go
beyond the Malaysia Agreement. They tried. More than 600 times, they tried. Yet
they failed.

On the other hand, a new constitution will make Malaysia permanent. It will also
guarantee our autonomy, a full autonomy. We will be states like Scotland in the
United Kingdom, having full control of our economy and politics while the federal
side takes care of our foreign diplomacy and security.

But we still sympathise with the states in the Federation of Malaya.

Zainal is irked that some politicians and the KL-centric entertainment industry do
not seem to see Sabah and Sarawak as equal to Peninsular Malaysia.

Merdeka isnt ours, say East

Malaysian activists
freemalaysiatoday.com |

7
 PETALING JAYA: In case you havent
noticed, theres yet another music video about harmonious living in Malaysia.

The new video, produced for the 60th Merdeka celebration and featuring
characters named Ali, Ah Kao and Muthu, showcases the musical talents of
Namewee, Aniq and David Arumugam. Those who have watched it on YouTube
and like it have praised it with such words as heart warming, lovely and
beautiful .

This narrative of harmony among Malays, Chinese and Indians has been
appearing regularly in Merdeka advertisements through the years, but it is one
that a Sabah activist objects to, saying it does not give the true Malaysian story.

Its sickening, said Zainal Ajamain, who campaigns for strict observance of the
1963 Malaysia Agreement.

Every year, Sabahans and Sarawakians have the Malayan narrative of Merdeka
shoved down our throats. Its as if Malaysia consists only of Malays, Chinese and
Indians.

Worse still, people say its Malaysias 60th independence day and it is not.

According to him, the root problem is that many political leaders and people in
the entertainment industry do not know, or perhaps refuse to acknowledge,
historical facts.

One of these facts is that Malaysia was formed on Sept 16, 1963, making it 54
years old and not 60.

In 2015, the Communications and Multimedia Ministry announced that the 58th
Merdeka Day would be known as National Day 2015. It said this was to foster
closer ties between Peninsular Malaysians and the people of Sabah and
Sarawak.

8
Zainal is irked that some politicians and the KL-centric entertainment industry do
not seem to see Sabah and Sarawak as equal to Peninsular Malaysia in the
Malaysian partnership.

Im happy for Malayans that they achieved independence on August 31, 1957.
But thats their history. It has nothing to do with Sabah or Sarawak. So why force
us to put on a show and celebrate it like it means something to us?

He said a true national celebration would be Malaysia Day, which falls on Sept
16.

I hope that people who like to boast about being Malaysian, especially political
leaders, actually understand that Malaysia includes the history, people and
narrative of Sabah and Sarawak. Malaya alone is not Malaysia.

S4Ss Peter John Jaban says Sarawakians have been indoctrinated to believe
that Aug 31 is their national day.

Sarawak for Sarawakians (S4S) spokesman Peter John Jaban said Sarawakians
had been indoctrinated to believe that Aug 31 is their national day.

This is why the date and, more importantly, the manner of the celebration of this
public holiday has become a metaphor for the disregard of Sarawak and Sabahs
position in Malaysia as it references a date before the country was formed, he
told FMT.

Perhaps August 31 can be celebrated nationwide as Constitution Day in

recognition of the efforts of Tunku Abdul Rahman and his founding government
on all our behalf.

He said more Sarawakians were now objecting to the tendency to negate the
existence and contribution of the Borneo states. He called this a hegemony.

The celebration of August 31 as Malaysias independence day must be seen as

a denial of Sarawaks history, he added.

9
He also said Sarawak Day, the day the state achieved self-governance, which is
celebrated on July 22, must be given national recognition and its significance
taught in schools.

July 22 should have passed into obscurity because it represents only the
transfer of self-government on the basis that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 was
to be signed a few months later, but because the agreement hasnt been
honoured, that date has become more meaningful, he said.

Singapore secession didnt breach

MA63
freemalaysiatoday.com |

KOTA KINABALU: The suit filed on Wednesday against the federal, Sabah and
Sarawak governments over Singapores exit from the Malaysian federation is
destined to fail, according to political activist Zainnal Ajamain.

Zainnal, who has written a book on the Malaysia Agreement of 1963 (MA63),
said Singapores decision to leave Malaysia did not breach the agreement
because the federal government had no hold on the republics sovereignty.

10
Let us not forget that Singapore did not become independent until the Singapore
Act was passed by Westminster in 1966, Zainnal told FMT.

The suit is brought by five members of Parti Solidariti Tanah Airku (Star). They
are seeking a declaration that the Malaysian government committed a breach of
MA63 when it failed to restrain Singapore from leaving the federation in 1965.

Zainnal acknowledged that the agreement between the federal government and
Singapore, purportedly to release Singapore from Malaysia, was not valid but he
said it had nothing to do with MA63.

According to a report in the Daily Express Sabah, the five are also seeking a
declaration that the Malaysia Agreement is valid and lawful notwithstanding
Singapores secession from the federation without the consent and approval of
Sabah and Sarawak.

The suit also seeks an injunction against Gerakan Akar Umbi Umno Malaysia
(Gaum) chairman Zulkarnain Mahdar to restrain him from making statements that
could be construed as a threat to freedom of expression and the right to freedom
of speech.

Referring to a report also published by the Daily Express, the five alleged that
Zulkarnain had made remarks that tended to offend against such freedoms.

The suit named the federal, Sabah and Sarawak governments as the second,
third and fourth defendants.

Zainnal said the five should have learned from the past, such as when a suit
brought by the Sabah Progressive Party was thrown out.

The court ruled the plaintiffs had no locus standi, he said. What makes these
five people think they can have a different ruling?

He added that a Malaysian court was the wrong place in which to express
grievances concerning MA63.

The right path to take is to go to London, he said. But Singapores leaving the
federation is not a breach. There is no need to go to court to get a ruling.

Poor English to blame for Azalina

misleading Dewan on MA63
FMT Reporters

11
Free Malaysia Today |

A Borneo rights advocate slams Minister in the Prime Minister's Department

Azalina Othman Said over 'wrong interpretation' on status of Sabah, Sarawak.

KOTA KINABALU: A Borneo rights advocate says Minister in the Prime Ministers
Department Azalina Othman Said should brush up on the English language to
have a better grasp of the law.

He was referring to Azalinas remarks in the Dewan Rakyat on the status of

Sabah and Sarawak in the context of the formation of Malaysia in 1963, following
the merger with the Federation of Malaya.

Zainnal Ajamain said Azalina failed to interpret the Malaysia Agreement 1963
(MA63) and other documents on the formation of Malaysia because she was
weak in the English language.

Zainnal reminded the Federal government that the MA63, Chapter 35,
specifically mentioned the phrase vested in the manner agreed.

That means while Malaya has the right to administer, it does not have absolute
right to rule and must adhere to MA63, the rights advocate said.

He attributed the anomaly to Sabah and Sarawak still belonging to the Crown,
even to this day.

12
Zainnal noted that Azalina told Parliament the Federal Government disputed the
idea that Sabah and Sarawak were equal partners with Malaya on the formation
of Malaysia.

MA63 stated the Bornean States shall be federated with the States of
Federation of Malaya, Azalina was quoted as telling Parliament.

Azalina went on to claim the Cobbold Commission had no say on the formation
of Malaysia, lamented the rights advocate.

What Azalina said was wrong. It just confirms public suspicion that Putrajaya
has no idea about MA63, Zainnal said.

He added that Azalinas other mistake was in thinking the phrase States of the
Federation of Malaya means the states inside Malaya.

The phrase States of the Federation uses capital S, implying a noun.

Therefore, the States of the Federation means the Federation of Malaya.

He explained the Cobbold Commission set out the Malaysia concept. The Inter-
Governmental Committee Report (IGC) discussed, in detail, the
recommendations by the Cobbold Commission.

The IGC Report became part and parcel of MA63, an international agreement
and treaty, signed by five governments viz North Borneo, Sarawak, Singapore,
Malaya and the United Kingdom.

It was lodged with the United Nations secretary-general.

The legal status of the Federation of Malaysia was constructed by the British as
the Malaysia Act 1963, Chapter 35, and passed by the UK Parliament on July 31,
1963.

This is the key to the formation. Azalina may not have read the Act and/or did
not understand, Zainnal added.

He believes that Azalina may not be interested in the truth, on MA63, but what
was only convenient.

The word federated with was the same as associated with, that means a
partnership, not a part of, Zainal pointed out.

Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore, therefore, were to be associated with the

Federation of Malaya, not with Johor or Kedah or Perak and so on, he said.

13
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2017

Sarawak assembly unanimously

passes motion on MA63
Bernama | November 9, 2017

It seeks to form high-level task force to negotiate with federal government to

resolve all outstanding issues about Malaysia Agreement 1963.

Douglas-Uggah-Embas_james-masing_ma63_600

KUCHING: The Sarawak assembly today unanimously passed a ministerial

motion on the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and matters related to it.

The motion was moved by Deputy Chief Minister Douglas Uggah Embas, who is
also Bukit Saban assemblyman, and seconded by another Sarawak Deputy
Chief Minister, Dr James Jemut Masing.

It was passed after being debated by six assemblymen, including four from the
opposition.

The four opposition members were See Chee How (PKR-Batu Lintang), Wong
King Wei (DAP-Padungan), Chong Chieng Jen (DAP-Kota Sentosa) and Baru
Bian (PKR- Bakelalan), while the two from BN were Dr Sim Hui Kian (Batu
Kawa) and Penguang Manggil (Marudi).

Speaker Mohamad Asfia Awang Nasar later put the motion to a vote that was
unanimously supported by all members of the state assembly.

Uggah, in moving the motion, sought the august house to mandate the state
government to form a high-level special task force to negotiate with the federal
government to resolve all outstanding issues related to compliance and
upholding of the constitutional safeguards and special rights accorded to

14
Sarawak in accordance with the terms, intent and spirit of the Malaysia
Agreement 1963.

He said the task force would help conclude the negotiations with the federal
government and have the issues resolved in conformity with legal and
constitutional positions.

Hence, the state government would humbly request the federal government
establish a corresponding task force so as to facilitate the resolving of these
issues amicably and in the interest of the nation, with the states interests and
rights properly safeguarded and entrenched, said Uggah.

He said the passing of the motion should not in any way be misinterpreted or
construed to mean that the state was willing to sacrifice and jeopardise the
continued existence of Malaysia as a nation.

We respect and honour the decision of our past leaders for our beloved state to
be part of Malaysia and we will always remain in Malaysia.

Let there be no doubt about this fact.

We will always uphold the sanctity of the spirit and the words of our state
anthem, he said.

On Sept 16, Prime Minister Najib Razak reassured the people that Sabah and
Sarawak would be accorded their rights as enshrined in the Malaysia Agreement
1963.

On Dec 8, 2015, the Sarawak assembly passed a motion, moved by Masing, to

mandate the state government to take all necessary measures under Article VIII
of the Malaysia Agreement for the complete implementation of all
recommendations in the Inter-Governmental Committee Report 1962 and
safeguard the special interests of the state and its people.

A team, led by Samariang assemblyperson Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman

Ghazali, was sent to London to view the original copies of documents related to
the Malaysia Agreement 1963, kept in the British National Archives.

Uggah said the team had procured certified copies of these important
documents.

15
Now, a new debate: Is the tourism tax
constitutional?
freemalaysiatoday.com |

KOTA KINABALU: Tourism and Culture Minister Nazri Aziz is barking up the
wrong tree by questioning the silence of Sarawak BN MPs on the controversial
tourism tax, says a Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) activist.

In an interview with FMT, Zainnal Ajamain spoke about the question on the
minds of many in the wake of the clash between Nazri and Sarawak Tourism,
Arts, Culture, Youth and Sports Minister Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah.

Why didnt Sarawak federal ministers who are MPs speak up against the
Tourism Tax Bill 2017 in the Cabinet and why didnt Sarawak BN MPs oppose
the bill when it was tabled in the Dewan Rakyat?

The answer, Zainnal said, was simple.

An MP is not a representative of the state. They represent constituencies within

the federation. Only the Sabah and Sarawak state legislative assemblies
represent their respective states.

16
Zainnal, a former senior research associate with Sabah-based think-tank,
Institute for Development Studies Sabah (IDS), said the problem lay with Nazri
who failed to understand the separation of powers between federal, state and
local governments.

Separation of powers

Zainnal said Article 95 (d) of the Federal Constitution clearly states the exclusion
of Sabah and Sarawak from Parliaments power to pass uniform laws on land or
local government.

In Sabah and Sarawak, he said, local government was a state matter and not a
federal matter, which was why the two states had their own ministries in charge
of local government.

He also said item 5(b) under the State List of the Ninth Schedule of the Federal
Constitution clearly states that Boarding Houses and Lodging Houses were
services of local character, meaning they came under the purview of local
councils.

This had been clearly reinforced in the respective state laws of both states,
Zainnal said.

In Sabah, he said, boarding houses and lodging houses come under the Sabah
Local Government Ordinance 1961 Section 49(46)(i) while in Sarawak, it comes
under the Protection of Public Health (Licensing of Hotels and Lodging Houses)
Regulations, 2003.

So thats why Nazris argument doesnt hold water, because regardless of

whether Sabah and Sarawak MPs helped pass the bill, it wasnt applicable to
Sabah and Sarawak.

He added that it was clearly unconstitutional as the federal government could not
collect tax revenue which comes under the purview of the local government as
provided in Article 95(d).

How can a senior minister and former law minister take an oath to uphold the
constitution but ignore this? asked Zainnal.

He said if Putrajaya was allowed to collect the tourism tax in Sabah and
Sarawak, it would set a precedent whereby the federal government could ignore
rights belonging to Sabah and Sarawak under MA63.

Zainnal added that the final decision on whether tourism tax could be imposed in
Sabah and Sarawak lay with the respective state governments.

17
Both the Sabah and Sarawak state governments have said they will discuss the
imposition of the tax in their coming Cabinet meetings before making their stand
on it.

Tourism tax not illegal, insists group

But MySabah, a non-political Sabah-based rights NGO, said there was nothing
illegal about the tourism tax.

In a Daily Express report, the groups legal adviser Tengku Fuad Ahmad said
under the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, the power to make laws in
respect of tourism and tax, with the exception of sales tax in Sabah and
Sarawak, lay with Parliament.

Additionally, Article 160 of the Federal Constitution defines tax as an impost

duty but doesnt include a rate levied for local purposes or a fee for a service
rendered.

This he said, meant that Parliament could make laws to tax any product or
service in Sabah regardless of whether the Sabah government already imposed
levies, fees or taxes on the same product or services.

So in the matter of hotel accommodation, earnings from such activities may

lawfully be subject to state government levies, licensing fees or sales tax, in
addition to federal taxes such as GST and the new tourism tax.

He also said that Article 95B(3) of the Federal Constitution provided for a
situation where goods and services might be subjected to both state and federal
taxation, and that it even stated that federal sales tax collection took priority over
the states sales tax.

Tengku Fuad also said if Sabah or Sarawak wished to dispute the legality of item
25A of the Federal List, then either the state should mount a challenge in the
courts regarding its inclusion because, as it stood, tourism was squarely a
federal matter.

He also said Sabah had conceded its taxation powers in exchange for among
others, the Special Grant contained in Part Four of the Tenth Schedule of the
Federal Constitution Sabahs right to 40% nett revenue derived from the state.

But Zainnal disputed this, pointing first to the fact that anything which wasnt
mentioned in MA63 such as tourism was residual power which belonged to
the state.

Usually residual power is given to the federal government, but in the case of
Malaysia it is given to the states, specifically Sabah and Sarawak.

18
He said there were so many items in Annex A of the Inter-Governmental
Committee report which werent covered in MA63 and which became residual
powers, and this included tourism.

Therefore, before the federal government can make the claim that tourism (item
25A) is under the Federal List of the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution
they have to get the consent of the Sabah and Sarawak state assemblies,
otherwise it is illegal.

He also said Tengku Fuad could not only cite Article 95B(3) and conveniently
forget about the constitutional safeguard provided for by Article 95(d) of the
Federal Constitution.

Matter of principle

Penampang MP Darell Leiking said that Zainnals contention that the final
decision on the implementation of the tourism tax lay with the Sabah government
did hold water.
In a literal sense, what Zainnal is saying is true. Sabah MPs dont represent the
state but their constituents.

But to me, Sabah MPs must carry out their duties in line with the spirit of the
MA63. They mustnt see themselves as Barisan MPs, but MPs who further carry
the aspirations of the state government in line with the MA63.

In this respect, Leiking said Putrajaya should have consulted the Sabah
government on the tax, following which, the Sabah government should have
relayed its stand to Sabah MPs.

Perhaps the Sabah BN MPs felt they didnt have any choice but to follow their
whip in the Dewan Rakyat in voting for the Tourism Tax Bill 2017, hence their
failure to speak against Nazris insistence that Sabah will not be exempted from
the tax.

This shows they have failed to protect the interests of Sabah and Sarawak. Mind
you, non-attendance from voting doesnt mean you are against the bill.

Leiking said he had asked Nazri for Sabah to be exempted from the tax during
the debate and that Sabah BN MPs should have insisted on the same.

We need to move beyond party politics at a parliamentary level and the decision
of the whip. The MPs must be independent and be free to decide on matters for
themselves rather than follow their partys directives, regardless of whether they
are government or opposition MPs.

19
But Leiking noted that Sabah and Sarawak, as equal partners of the federation
were under-represented in Parliament, which would ultimately mean their
opposition to the bill might not have made a difference because they didnt have
the numbers at all.

This he said, needed to be reviewed so that Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya had an
equal number of seats so that the Federation of Malaysia could work as it was
supposed to.

While I may have debated to exempt the tourism tax for Sabah, I myself am now
even more aware that several acts were done in exchange for Sabahs rights to
taxation by the insertion of the Special Grant under the Tenth Schedule of the
Federal Constitution.

Despite the constitutional obligation of returning to Sabah 40% nett tax of the
taxes collected from Sabah, this hasnt been fully implemented, as an unrealistic
figure, today, had been fixed since 1969 at RM26.7 million yearly.

He said Sabah as an equal partner with constitutional guarantees had been

totally displaced when it came to the share of its own wealth.

So imposing the tourism tax in Sabah indicates yet another scheme to milk
Sabah of its tourism business and to share the same centrally at the federal
level.

The tourism tax is fixed and charged on a per-room, per-night basis.

The tax is RM2.50 for non-rated hotels. RM5 for two-star, RM10 for three-star,
RM15 for four-star and RM20 for five-star.

When winding up debate on the Tourism Tax Bill 2017 in the Dewan Rakyat on
April 6, Nazri said the tax would be able to bring in an income of about RM654.62
million if there was a 60% occupancy rate at the more than 11 million hotel rooms
in the country.

He had said the tax would be used to improve tourism facilities and promote
Malaysia overseas.

20