Sarawakians are no strangers to disappointment when it comes to federal interpretations of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). But the recent argument advanced by Law and Institutional Reform Minister Datuk Azalina Othman Said, that MA63 contains “nothing” on oil and gas ownership or regulation, has struck a particularly raw nerve in East Malaysia.
Her remarks, widely carried by mainstream newspapers and portals in Malaya, are not merely a legal opinion. They are seen here as part of a calculated and familiar attempt to narrow, dilute and ultimately undermine ongoing negotiations to restore Sarawak’s rights under MA63. Once again, the foundational agreement that brought Sabah and Sarawak into Malaysia is being reduced to a technical footnote, interpreted selectively to suit federal convenience.
Azalina argues that Putrajaya will abide by the apex court’s decision on the regulatory framework governing Petronas’ operations in Sarawak, insisting that MA63 contains no provision on oil and gas ownership or regulation. According to her, these matters fall squarely under federal laws, specifically the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA 1974), which vests “entire ownership” of petroleum in Petronas.
This argument may sound tidy from Putrajaya. But from Sarawak, it appears detached from history, constitutional logic and political reality.
To begin with, MA63 is not an ordinary document. It is a nation-building contract. It is the legal and political foundation upon which Malaysia was formed as a federation of distinct entities, namely Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak, each with its own history, laws and sovereign attributes. To claim that MA63 is irrelevant to natural resources simply because the words “oil and gas” do not appear verbatim is to fundamentally misunderstand how constitutional compacts work.
More troublingly, it reflects a Malaya-centric reading of Malaysia’s formation; one that treats Sabah and Sarawak as territories absorbed into an existing state, rather than equal partners who negotiated specific safeguards before agreeing to join.
Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB) publicity chief Datuk Seri Abdul Karim Hamzah has rightly called out this flawed reasoning. As he reminded members of a WhatsApp discussion group, Sarawak had its own laws regulating land and natural resources long before Malaysia was formed, and those laws were never repealed.
Sarawak’s Land Code, unlike the National Land Code applicable in Malaya, explicitly defines the ‘land’ and ‘territory’ of Sarawak to include the continental shelf and the resources beneath it. Land matters, by constitutional design, fall under state jurisdiction in Sarawak. Any discussion about petroleum that ignores this legal reality is incomplete at best, and disingenuous at worst.
Abdul Karim, who is Minister for Tourism, Creative Industry and Performing Arts, also pointed out a crucial historical fact often glossed over in federal narratives: the Petroleum Development Act 1974 was enacted during the Emergency period. It did not require the consent of the Sarawak State Legislative Assembly. It was forced through Parliament at a time when Sarawak’s political leverage was at its weakest.
More importantly, when the Emergency ended, the Act should have lapsed unless ratified and accepted by the Borneo states. That ratification never happened. To now treat PDA 1974 as a supreme instrument overriding Sarawak’s pre-existing rights is to elevate an ordinary federal statute above a constitutional compact.
This is where Azalina’s argument falters most seriously. She frames the issue as one of statutory hierarchy, federal law versus state law, without acknowledging that Sarawak’s position is anchored not merely in legislation, but in the Constitution and the Malaysia Agreement itself.
Petronas, for all its stature, derives its authority from parliamentary acts. Sarawak derives its rights from a constitutional agreement that predates those acts. One is strong by statute; the other is strong by founding principle. The two cannot be equated.
What makes the situation even more frustrating for Sarawakians is the contrast in leadership approaches. A senior member of the same WhatsApp group reminded observers that when Tun Pehin Sri Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar was the de facto law minister, he moved decisively to amend Articles 1(2), 160(2) and 161A of the Federal Constitution, restoring, in record time, the constitutional recognition of Sabah and Sarawak as equal partners.
That was political will in action.
Today, under Azalina’s watch, progress has stalled. Key reforms remain unresolved: the proposed amendment requiring Judicial Commissioners in Sabah and Sarawak to be confirmed by their respective Yang di-Pertua Negeri; the long-standing demand to guarantee Sabah and Sarawak at least one-third (35 per cent) of seats in the Dewan Rakyat to prevent unilateral constitutional amendments by Malaya; and the activation of Article 95C to devolve powers over hazardous and scheduled waste management.
Equally pressing are federal statutes that require serious review if MA63 is to be honoured in substance, not just rhetoric, namely the Petroleum Development Act 1974, the Territorial Sea Act 2012, the Environmental Quality Act 1974 and the Continental Shelf Act 1966. These laws centralised powers in Putrajaya over decades, often without meaningful consultation, and in ways that hollowed out the autonomy promised to Sabah and Sarawak.
Instead of tackling this long list of structural imbalances, Azalina has chosen to question the very legitimacy of Sarawak’s claims under MA63. Many here see this not as legal neutrality, but as the reflex of Umno’s centralist DNA, an instinctive defence of federal dominance dressed up as constitutional interpretation.
Another contributor to the discussion, Hadzman Johny, captured the deeper unease when he observed that MA63 is being treated as an “empty document” that can be quoted selectively according to the political tastes of Putrajaya.
He is right. MA63 cannot be read in isolation, stripped of its purpose and context. It was signed before PDA 1974 even existed. A law born 11 years later cannot logically be used to extinguish rights that existed earlier. To suggest otherwise is to invert the hierarchy of law and history.
Act 144, the Petroleum Development Act, is an ordinary federal statute, enacted at a time when Sarawak was politically vulnerable. It was never an agreement between equals. MA63 was.
If, as Azalina implies, MA63 has no bearing on oil and gas, one must ask a simple question: why has the federal government taken the matter to the Federal Court? The answer is equally simple: because Putrajaya itself recognises that its legal position is not as secure as it claims.
The narrative that Petronas has “total ownership” of petroleum resources in Malaysia has served a political function for decades: legitimising the concentration of wealth and decision-making in Putrajaya, while Sabah and Sarawak remain net contributors without commensurate power or prosperity.
This is the context in which Petroleum Sarawak Berhad (Petros) must be understood. Its establishment is not an act of defiance. It is not a threat. It is a corrective measure; a long overdue assertion of agency by a state that has watched its vast natural wealth extracted while development indicators lag behind many states in Malaya.
Sarawak and Sabah are rich in oil, gas, timber and other resources, yet they continue to trail in infrastructure, healthcare access and income levels. This is not accidental. It is the predictable outcome of a system that centralises control and disperses crumbs.
Reducing the debate to alleged “overlapping functions” between Petronas and Petros is a bureaucratic sleight of hand. It distracts from the core question: who has the right to decide the fate of Sarawak’s resources?
Malaysia is not a unitary empire. Sabah and Sarawak are not colonies. They are founding partners. Putrajaya cannot continue to hide behind self-created legal interpretations to preserve central dominance.
If MA63 continues to be interpreted selectively and opportunistically, the consequences will be political, not just legal. Faith in the federal promise will erode further. Distrust will deepen. And the idea of Malaysia as a fair and balanced federation will weaken.
Hey, Sarawakians are not asking for favours, they are demanding respect for a solemn agreement.
Respect MA63, or admit, honestly, that Malaysia was built on broken promises.
——————————————————-
DISCLAIMER:
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune. The writer can be reached at rajlira@gmail.com
