Scrap NCA deal if answers are not forthcoming
Published on: Sunday, November 21, 2021
Text Size:
Credit: reddit.com
If the answers are not forthcoming, including from the proponents of the scheme, it is best that the State Government leaders scrap the whole thing than have future generations of Sabahans piss on their graves.
- Unlike other agreements with the State Government, is the Singapore-based firm in the deal excused from having to post a performance bond of any kind?
- Does the NCA grant a one-off irrevocable transfer of natural assets and carbon assets to this Singapore-based firm? If so, why is there a need for this?
- It is true that Natural Capital is broadly defined in the NCA to include natural resources, soil, water, waste and air? Isn’t this a transfer to the Singapore firm of rights to Sabah land?
- Is the transfer of Sabah land rights made without the fulfilment of any performance guarantees or milestones. How is this good and in the interests of Sabah?
- The NCA involves Sabah land, Sabah carbon and Sabah natural resources. Why then is the NCA reportedly governed by Singapore law? Is Malaysian law inferior, if so?
- Is it true that in the NCA, if the Singapore firm fails, there are no penalties, consequences or damages which it has to pay. But that if the Sabah Government breaches the NCA then we must pay damages to the Singapore firm? If so, how is this a fair deal?
- Is it true that there is no price discovery mechanism set out in the NCA? What is to stop the Singapore firm from selling Sabah’s carbon at undervalue for a quick profit? Or worse, using transfer pricing to reduce profit margins to zero so that Sabah gets nothing?
- Typical NCAs with third party consultants and financial institutions will only cost the Sabah Government between 1-2pc of expected gross revenues. How can the Singapore firm justify such a high fee of 30pc, if true?
- Why does the NCA talk about and rely upon the Kyoto Protocol when this expired in December 2020?
- Is it true that the NCA prohibits the State Assembly from passing laws to regulate carbon trading and natural capital. If so, how can a Singapore company tell Sabah’s elected representatives what laws we can or cannot pass?
- An influential global leader in the carbon conservation field remarked thus:
“It’s hard to imagine that such an unusual agreement (the NCA) would withstand a legal challenge. It’s a wake-up call that we need to redouble our efforts to make sure that there will be no market for carbon credits generated by such a scheme”.
Doesn’t this mean that because the NCA is one-sided that it is no longer bankable or viable as a way of monetising Sabah’s carbon potential?
- Is it true that the Singapore firm only has a paid up capital of USD$1,000 and that its origins are in the British Virgin Islands with possible Jewish connections?
- Is it true that the Singapore firm does not have a proper office or staff and uses as its address, a condominium in Singapore?
- Is it true that the Singapore firm has only one director whose only experience is in listing a stem cell company with no real experience in the natural capital or carbon monetisation field?
- Is it true that a former Yayasan Sabah official who reportedly went into hiding in Brazil and Australia at the height of investigations into the Foundation in the 1990s to escape arrest under the Internal Security Act (ISA) is the broker in this deal and is supposed to get a 30pc cut amounting to RM1.2 billion?
- Was the State Government told not to conduct due diligence on the the Singapore firm’s director and this ex-YS official as well as the Singapore firm involved?
- Isn’t it irresponsible for Sabah to sign a 100 year Agreement for 2 million hectares with a Singapore company that is so clearly under-capitalised and under-capacity, if true?
- Why is it that Sabah must deal with this Singapore firm when there are other more experienced, capable and proven facilitators and financiers available in the carbon and natural capital market?
Concerned group of Sabahans
ADVERTISEMENT
