MA63 needs to be interpreted comprehensively, not just based on literal interpretation of its text, says PBB Youth

KUCHING, Jan 27 2926: Parti Pesaka Bumiputra Bersaty (PBB) Youth wing has said that Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) needs to be  interpreted comprehensively, not just based on a literal interpretation of the text of the agreement.

PBB Youth asks if Petronas filing of notice of motion has received the support of the federal government
 

“MA63 is the founding document of Malaysia that unites Sarawak, Sabah, Singapore and Malaya as equal partners in the federation,” it said in a statement when responding to Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Instutional Reform) Azalina Othman Said in Parliament yesterday.

“The absence of specific provisions on oil and gas (in MA63) does not mean that Sarawak’s laws and constitutional framework relating to land and natural resources can be ignored,” PBB Youth said.

It pointed out that the state Oil Mining Ordinance 1958 (OMO 1958) is still in force and has never been repealed by the Sarawak State Legislative Assembly.

The movement described the approach that rejected MA63 based on a narrow interpretation as contradicting the spirit of the agreement and potentially affecting the balance of relations between the federal and state governments.

The Youth also raised several questions seeking clarification regarding the action of Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) in filing a legal challenge against the Sarawak government, including whether the action received the consent or official support of the federal government.

It also questioned the need for the court action following Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s recognition of Sarawak’s rights and the role of Petroleum Sarawak Berhad (Petros) as the state sole gas aggregator.

It also called for assurances that the approach of continued negotiation and engagement will remain the priority in resolving any disputes regarding Sarawak's oil and gas rights in the future, rather than legal action.

It reiterated that it will continue to stand firm with the premier in defending and protecting state's rights in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and existing laws.

In a written reply to a question raised by Saratok Member of Parliament Ali Biju in the Dewan Rakyat on January 26, who asked the prime minister to state the federal government’s latest stance on Sarawak’s claims relating to the Order in Council 1954 and the Territorial Seas Act 2012, as well as the extent to which the MA63 negotiations can avoid overlapping powers between Petros and Petronas.

Azalina said has said that the matter was being considered in the Federal Court based on Petronas's input and official response and that the government respects the independence of the judiciary and will abide by its decision.

Azalina also stated that MA63 is a fundamental document for the formation of Malaysia but does not contain provisions relating to the ownership, management or regulation of oil and gas, in addition to stressing that the industry is determined by federal legislation, particularly the Petroleum Development Act 1974 which vests Petronas with petroleum.

 

Wait for the Federal Court's decision, says premier when asked to respond to Azalina's statement on MA63 and O&G

KUCHING, Jan 27 2026: Premier Abang Johari Openg has asked the people to wait for the Federal Court’s decision on a notice of motion filed by Petronas seeking clarification on the regulatory framework application on petroleum operations in Sarawak.

Premier Abang Johari Openg urges the people to wait for the Federal Court's decision 

"Wait for the court’s decision," he told reporters after launching the Asia Pacific Aerospace Conference and Exhibition (APACE) 2026 at the Borneo Convention Centre Kuching (BCCK) today.

In a written reply to a question raised by Saratok Member of Parliament Ali Biju in the Dewan Rakyat on January 26, who asked the prime minister to state the federal government’s latest stance on Sarawak’s claims relating to the Order in Council 1954 and the Territorial Seas Act 2012, as well as the extent to which the MA63 negotiations can avoid overlapping powers between Petros and Petronas.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Azalina Othman said has said that the matter was being considered in the Federal Court based on Petronas's input and official response and that the government respects the independence of the judiciary and will abide by its decision.

Azalina also stated that MA63 is a fundamental document for the formation of Malaysia but does not contain provisions relating to the ownership, management or regulation of oil and gas, in addition to stressing that the industry is determined by federal legislation, particularly the Petroleum Development Act 1974 which vests Petronas with petroleum.

SUPP Stakan dismisses Azalina's claim on O&G ownership as relying on literal, narrow reading of MA63

KUCHING, Jan 27 2026: SUPP Stakan branch asserted that Minister in the Prime Minister in the Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Azalina Othman Said's statement that "nothing in Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63)" mentions oil and gas ownership relies on a literal, narrow reading of the document. 

SUPP Stakan branch: MA63 was not a standalone contract; it was predicated on the recommendations of the IGC Report.
 

However, it said the legal reality is that MA63 preserved Sarawak's existing constitutional and legislative framework.

“It is crucial to address the perspective that viewing MA63 in isolation provides an incomplete legal picture,” the branch in a statement when responding to Azalina’s statement in Parliament yesterday.

It added that to fully understand the constitutional landscape of Sarawak’s rights, MA63 must be read concurrently with the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Report 1962 and the Sarawak Oil Mining Ordinance (OMO) 1958.

“The Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Report as a foundational document,” it said, adding that MA63 was not a standalone contract; it was predicated on the recommendations of the IGC Report.

“Under Article VIII of MA63, the governments of the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, and Sarawak agreed to take legislative, executive, or other action to implement the assurances, undertakings, and recommendations contained in the IGC Report.

“The IGC Report specifically ensured that existing laws in the Borneo States would continue to operate unless amended or repealed by the appropriate authority.

“This includes Sarawak's land and mineral rights, which were never intended to be unilaterally surrendered upon the formation of Malaysia.

“The OMO 1958 is a state law that predates the formation of Malaysia. It grants Sarawak the authority to regulate the exploration and mining of petroleum within its boundaries.

“Because the OMO 1958 was never repealed by the Sarawak State Legislative Assembly, it remains valid law under Article 162 of the Federal Constitution, which preserves "existing laws" that were in effect before Merdeka Day or Malaysia Day.

“While the federal government cites the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) 1974 as the governing law, legal experts in Sarawak argue that the PDA cannot supersede the OMO without Sarawak's consent.

“This is because the OMO concerns "land," which is a State matter under the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

“Sarawak’s rights over its O&G resources are anchored in the Sarawak (Alteration of Boundaries) Order in Council 1954, which defined Sarawak’s boundaries to include the continental shelf.

When Sarawak joined Malaysia in 1963, it did so with these boundaries intact,” the branch said, stating that any federal law (like the PDA 1974 or the Territorial Sea Act 2012) that attempts to alter these boundaries or strip the state of its mineral rights without the State’s consent is a violation of the spirit and letter of MA63.

The branch that by reading MA63 alongside the IGC Report, it becomes clear that Sarawak’s power over its resources, enshrined in the OMO 1958, was a condition of its participation in the Federation, not a right that was signed away.

“Dismissing these rights by looking only at the text of MA63 ignores the "foundational documents" that the minister herself admits set the terms for the formation of Malaysia,” it said.

SUPP Stakan branch was commenting on the written reply to a question raised by Saratok Member of Parliament Ali Biju in the Dewan Rakyat on January 26, who asked the prime minister to state the federal government’s latest stance on Sarawak’s claims relating to the Order in Council 1954 and the Territorial Seas Act 2012, as well as the extent to which the MA63 negotiations can avoid overlapping powers between Petros and Petronas.

Azalina said that the matter was being considered in the Federal Court based on Petronas's input and official response and that the government respects the independence of the judiciary and will abide by its decision.

Azalina also stated that MA63 is a fundamental document for the formation of Malaysia but does not contain provisions relating to the ownership, management or regulation of oil and gas, in addition to stressing that the industry is determined by federal legislation, particularly the Petroleum Development Act 1974 which vests Petronas with petroleum

PRS Youth reminds Azalina that oil and gas lie beneath land that has never been a federal property, says land, natural resources come under State List

KUCHING, Jan 27 2026: Parti Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) Youth says it takes note of a recent claim by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Azalina Othman Said that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) “has nothing to say” about oil and gas.

PRS Youth chief Christopher Gira: If the federal government had original constitutional ownership over petroleum, there would have been no need for the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA 1974). 

Its chief Christopher Gira Sambang stressed that the claim is not a valid legal argument, but a narrowing exercise designed to avoid real constitutional consequences.

“MA63 was never intended as a technical statute regulating specific industries. It was a founding agreement that determined how sovereignty, legislative power, and economic control would be divided within the Federation of Malaysia.

“Its legal force comes from its incorporation into the Federal Constitution,” Gira, who is also Tamin State Legislative Member (SLM), said in a statement.

“Under the Constitution, land and natural resources fall under the State List. This was the position in 1963 and remains so today.

“For Sabah and Sarawak, these powers are further protected by Article 95D, which provides that federal laws on State List matters do not apply unless adopted by the State Legislative Assemblies,” he argued.

He added oil and gas lie beneath land — and land has never been federal property.

“If the federal government had original constitutional ownership over petroleum, there would have been no need for the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA 1974).

“The PDA exists precisely because ownership was not federal to begin with,” Gira said.

He said in Sarawak this position is even clearer, saying that Sarawak had the Oil Mining Ordinance 1958 (OMO 1958) before Malaysia was formed.

He said Ordinance vested full authority over petroleum in the state government and was never lawfully repealed.

Gira said that the establishment of Petros and Sarawak’s gas laws are not acts of defiance, but exercises of powers that were never lawfully extinguished.

“PRS Youth also questions the federal government’s inconsistency. When MA63 is said to be “silent”, we are told silence means no entitlement.

“Yet when MA63 and the Constitution speak expressly, they are ignored — as seen in Sabah’s 40% entitlement, which had to be enforced through the courts.

“This is not about opposing the federation. It is about constitutional honesty,” he added.

He said if the federal government wishes to justify its control over Sarawak’s oil and gas, it should do so openly — by admitting that such control rests on post-1963 legislation and political arrangements, not on MA63 or the Constitution as originally designed.

“PRS Youth stands firmly with the Sarawak government in defending the state’s rights under MA63,” he said.

Gira was commenting on the written reply to a question raised by Saratok Member of Parliament Ali Biju in the Dewan Rakyat on January 26, who asked the prime minister to state the federal government’s latest stance on Sarawak’s claims relating to the Order in Council 1954 and the Territorial Seas Act 2012, as well as the extent to which the MA63 negotiations can avoid overlapping powers between Petros and Petronas.

Azalina said that the matter was being considered in the Federal Court based on Petronas's input and official response and that the government respects the independence of the judiciary and will abide by its decision.

Azalina also stated that MA63 is a fundamental document for the formation of Malaysia but does not contain provisions relating to the ownership, management or regulation of oil and gas, in addition to stressing that the industry is determined by federal legislation, particularly the Petroleum Development Act 1974 which vests Petronas with petroleum.

She also referred to the Commercial Settlement Agreement between Petronas and Sarawak on Dec 7, 2020 which is said to pave the way for Petros to participate more actively in the oil and gas value chain.