SIBU: Senator Robert Lau Hui Yew has clarified that the ongoing Petros-Petronas dispute should not be equated with controversies involving Tabung Haji and Felda, saying the issues are fundamentally different in nature and context.
Responding to a recent commentary by writer Walter Sandosam published in the Malay Mail and other media, Lau said the Petros-Petronas issue should be viewed primarily through the lens of constitutional rights, legislative authority and the historical relationship between Sarawak and the Federation, rather than solely through governance and accountability.
Lau said Sandosam, who has considerable professional experience in internal audit, corporate governance and anti-corruption oversight, had compared the dispute with the experience of Tabung Haji and Felda, where decisions made under previous political circumstances were later scrutinised over concerns about governance and oversight.
“Precisely because of his professional background, however, his recent comparison between the Tabung Haji controversy and the Petros-Petronas dispute deserves to be examined carefully,” he said in a statement today.
According to Lau, Tabung Haji and Felda primarily involve institutional governance and financial management, with concerns centred on how public institutions were managed and how such shortcomings affected the national economy.
“The Petros-Petronas dispute is of an entirely different character,” he said.
Lau said the dispute involved the constitutional and legal relationship between Sarawak and the Federation, including the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), the Federal Constitution, the constitutional position and boundaries of the states, and the respective powers of the federal and state governments over petroleum resources.
He said there was no allegation that Sarawak’s claim arose from corruption, embezzlement or mismanagement of public funds.
“The dispute is fundamentally about constitutional rights, legislative authority and the historical exercise of federal power,” he said.
Lau also rejected the suggestion that a political dimension automatically meant an accountability failure, pointing out that constitutional disputes in federations could be resolved through both judicial determination and political negotiation.
He said political leaders had a role in resolving matters concerning relationships between the constituent parts of a federation, while courts had a role in determining questions of law.
“A political settlement that is consistent with the Federal Constitution and MA63 should not automatically be dismissed as an unacceptable ‘political compromise’,” he said.
“Political compromise is not synonymous with corruption, nor does negotiation necessarily mean surrendering accountability.”
Lau further pointed to Section 3 of the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA), which he said expressly provided for a political solution by giving the Prime Minister powers to issue directions that were binding on Petronas.
He said the historical context of the dispute also needed to be examined, particularly developments in 1969 when the Continental Shelf Act 1966, enacted for the Federation of Malaya, was extended to Sarawak and Sabah through executive powers under the Emergency Ordinance 1969.
According to Lau, Sarawak and Sabah already had their own pre-Malaysia laws governing their continental shelves, predating Malaya’s Continental Shelf Act 1966.
He said the development had profound consequences for the legal treatment and control of the continental shelf and petroleum resources of the two Borneo states.
“This raises a fundamental constitutional question: What was the legal and constitutional basis for using emergency powers arising from circumstances in Malaya to alter the legal position concerning the continental shelf of Sarawak and Sabah?” he said.
Lau said answering that question required an examination of Malaysia’s constitutional history, MA63, the Federal Constitution, relevant legislation and the circumstances surrounding the exercise of Federal power in 1969.
He added that the principle of establishing context before assessing an issue should apply particularly when discussing governance and accountability.
Lau acknowledged Sandosam’s professional expertise and his right to express an opinion, but said experience in internal audit did not, by itself, determine questions of constitutional law or the historical rights of Sarawak.
“The people of Sarawak are not asking for a favour. They are asking that the constitutional settlement upon which Malaysia was formed be examined and honoured,” he said.
Lau said the Petros-Petronas dispute should therefore not be reduced to a question of whether politicians should or should not compromise.
“The real question is whether the Constitution, MA63 and the historical constitutional position of Sarawak have been properly respected,” he said.
He said if the courts determined the legal questions and political leaders subsequently reached a constitutional and mutually acceptable settlement, it should not automatically be regarded as a failure of accountability.
“It may instead be the very exercise of constitutional responsibility that has been missing for decades,” he said.
