KUCHING: Progressive Democratic Party (PDP) Vice-President, Baru Bian, has disputed the assertion that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) has no relevance to oil and gas ownership and regulation, stressing that constitutional interpretation must consider historical jurisdiction and legal context.
In a recent statement, he said a proper reading of MA63 should not rely solely on the absence of explicit wording but must take into account Sarawak’s legal position prior to the formation of Malaysia.
Baru noted that before Sept 16, 1963, Sarawak was a self-governing territory with clear jurisdiction over its land and natural resources, including petroleum, which was regulated under laws such as the Sarawak Mining Ordinance.
“There was no surrender or transfer of oil and gas ownership or regulatory authority to the Federation in MA63 or its accompanying instruments. Under constitutional principles, powers not expressly ceded remain with the original authority,” he said.
He added that the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Report – which forms the backbone of MA63 – consistently affirmed that the Borneo states were to retain control over land and natural resources.
Oil and gas, he argued, fall within this domain as resources beneath land and territorial waters unless they were expressly transferred.
Baru also pointed to the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) 1974 as evidence that the Federal Government did not originally possess inherent constitutional jurisdiction over petroleum resources.
“If the federal government already had such authority, there would have been no necessity for Parliament to pass a law to vest ownership in PETRONAS,” he said, adding that legislation is enacted to create or acquire authority that did not previously exist.
He further emphasised that MA63 is a foundational constitutional compact and must be interpreted purposively, with due regard to historical context and the intentions of the parties involved.
“To argue that the absence of explicit wording extinguishes Sarawak’s original rights is both legally unsound and historically inaccurate,” he said.
Baru stressed that the matter should not be viewed as a confrontation with the federal government or an attempt to undermine national unity, but rather as an effort to honour the constitutional guarantees upon which Malaysia was formed.
“Sarawak’s position on oil and gas is rooted in law, history, and constitutional principle. It deserves serious engagement – not dismissal based on a narrow textual reading,” he said.
He concluded that the claim MA63 is irrelevant to oil and gas because it is silent on the matter oversimplifies a complex constitutional reality.
“Silence does not mean surrender. History, law, and subsequent legislation all point to the same conclusion: Sarawak never relinquished its original jurisdiction over oil and gas,” he said, calling for a mature federal discussion in the spirit of MA63 and genuine federalism.
