KUCHING: Sarawak’s ownership of its petroleum resources is not a matter of sentiment; it is a right firmly anchored in constitutional safeguards, international treaties, and valid state laws.
Practising lawyer Wejok Tomik said the legal bedrock of the state’s claims over its oil and gas resources are established on five pillars that substantiate Sarawak’s sovereign authority over its natural resources.
The first pillar, he said, is the Preservation of Pre-Malaysia Laws (Article 162), in which the Oil Mining Ordinance (OMO) 1958, enacted before Malaysia’s formation, remains valid law.
“It mandates that any entity exploring or exploiting oil within Sarawak’s boundaries
must obtain a state licence. Federal legislation cannot override this without Sarawak’s express consent,” he said.
The Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu Supreme Council member said another pillar is the Constitutional Protection of Boundaries (Article 2).
He noted that Under Article 2 of the Federal Constitution, state boundaries cannot be altered without the consent of the State Legislature.
“The Sarawak (Alteration of Boundaries) Order in Council 1954 extended Sarawak’s boundaries to include the continental shelf. Any attempt to seize subsea resources via the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) 1974 without consent is unconstitutional,” he added.
Wejok said another equally important pillar is the Contextual Interpretation of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
He argued that while the word “petroleum” may not appear in the text, MA63 is the foundational document preserving Sarawak’s territorial integrity, saying that silence does not equate to the extinguishment of rights.
“Furthermore, MA63 must be read alongside the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Report 1962, which contains “assurances”, protecting Sarawak’s interests,” he said.
Wejok said Sarawak’s sovereign authority over its natural resources is also established in the State Authority over Land.
He noted that the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution places “Land” and mining permits under the State List, saying the Sarawak Land Code reinforces that “Land” includes the seabed and subsoil, granting the State ownership over the mineral wealth found therein.
He argued that Sarawak’s sovereign authority over its mineral resources is also established in the Inapplicability of the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) 1974.
“Enacted during a period of Emergency, the PDA 1974 was never approved by the Sarawak State Legislative Assembly. Therefore, it cannot supersede Sarawak’s sovereign rights over its territory,” he said.
Wejok had highlighted the five pillars in response to recent assertions made by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, regarding the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
“It is imperative to correct the record. The suggestion that MA63 contains no provisions regarding the ownership or regulation of oil and gas is a narrow, legally incomplete interpretation and gross misreading that fails to reflect the constitutional framework of our Federation,” he said.
He said the Sarawak government remains committed to its development goals through Petros (Petroleum Sarawak Berhad), which is actively exercising the State’s rights to regulate the
industry.
He called urged the Putrajaya to respect the spirit of “partnership” and honour the constitutional reality of Sarawak’s rights.
“Silence in the MA63 does not equate to the extinguishment of pre-existing rights. We must
respect the judicial process currently before the Federal Court while recognising that Sarawak’s legislative framework remains the bedrock of its claim.
“As this matter is currently under judicial review, all parties must respect the process and the constitutional framework that governs our nation,” he said.
