Sri Aman MP rejects Azalina's interpretation of MA63 over oil and gas, says such approach is deemed strategically incomplete

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 27 2026 — Sri Aman Member of Parliament  Doris Sophia Brodie said Sarawak should reject the narrow interpretation that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) does not cover oil and gas matters.

Sri Aman MP Doris Sophia Brodie says Azalina Othman Said's written response to Ali Biju is strategically incomplete when it suggests that MA63 does not cover oil and gas matters.  

She said such an approach is deemed “strategically incomplete” and ignores the core of the constitutional relationship between the federation and Sarawak when responding to media queries today.

She was commenting on the written reply of Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform)  Azalina Othman Said 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.

According to Wai.fm, Doris said that the comment that MA63 does not touch on oil and gas is not just a technical issue related to regulating the industry, but rather a constitutional question regarding the limits of the federation's power over Sarawak as a founding partner of the federation.

“In my opinion,  Azalina's written response to Ali Biju is strategically incomplete when it suggests that MA63 does not cover oil and gas matters.

“That neglect is the heart of the constitutional relationship between the federal and Sarawak,” she said as saying.

She said the narrow interpretation ignored the true purpose of MA63 which was never intended to list every sector, but rather to protect Sarawak's autonomy and equal status as a founding partner of Malaysia.

“Sarawak does not come from a Federal statute, but from the constitutional compact that formed this country.

“Therefore, in my view, any federal law including the Petroleum Development Act 1974 must be interpreted in line with MA63, not in a way that diminishes it,” she said.

Doris stressed that the main issue was not the existence of the Petroleum Development Act 1974, but whether it could override existing constitutional protections without the consent of the state, thus making Sarawak's claim a legally moot question.

Doris also stressed that the disregard for the Oil Mining Ordinance 1958 (OMO 1958) was unacceptable because the ordinance, she said, was a pre-Malaysian law enacted before Sarawak joined the Federation and regulated oil mining on Sarawakian land.

“We need to know that the 1958 OMO preceded the PDA and was never expressly repealed with Sarawak’s consent under MA63.

“When Sarawak relies on the 1958 OMO today, it is not against federal law, but activating the state’s retained powers,” he said.

Doris said that when the 1958 OMO was recognised, the claim that the Petroleum Development Act 1974 “solved everything” became legally moot, and that is why the matter was considered important to ignore.

He also expressed sadness when some saw Sarawak as greedy or arrogant on the resource issue, whereas Sarawak, he said, was not demanding special treatment but demanding that the 1963 promise be honoured.

“Respecting MA63 strengthens Malaysia. Ignoring it weakens the foundation of the Federation,” she asserted. 

In the written response, Azalina informed 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.

 

 

Scrapping diagnostic test welccomed, but Malaysia needs uniform entry age for Primary One, says social activist

KUCHING, Jan 27 2026: Social activist Voon Shiak Ni has welcomed the federal Ministry of Education (MoE) decision to scrap off a proposal to implement the need of a diagnostic test on six year old children for entry to Primary One class next year’s session.

Voon Shiak Ni: Parents have also urged that MoE urgently clarify and standardise the official entry age for Primary One students nationwide .   

Prime Minister  Anwar Ibrahim has agreed to scrap the proposed diagnostic screening test to assess children's eligibility for entry into Year One as early as six years old, beginning with the 2027 school session.

He said the proposal had been carefully reviewed, including concerns that such testing could have psychological effects on children.

He said the initial proposal was well-intentioned, as it aimed to introduce an assessment system before children enter school. However, it was felt that it could be discriminatory in nature.

He added this could lead to children being deemed unfit or less intelligent before entering Year One or preschool, which may have psychological consequences. Therefore, it is now scrapped.

Voon, however, said that Malaysia needs a uniform and clearly enforced Primary One entry age to ensure fairness, prevent discrimination, and support children’s mental and developmental readiness for school.

To further address the issue positively , Voon said parents have also urged that MoE urgently clarify and standardise the official entry age for Primary One students nationwide .  

“The current policy framework, which allows entry at both six and seven years old depending on interpretation and discretion, has created widespread confusion among parents and will give rise to inconsistencies in implementation across schools, and the possibilities of unequal treatment and assessment of children within the national education system.

“As a centrally administered education system, Malaysia must uphold uniformity and fairness in access to primary education,” she said.

She added the absence of a single, clearly enforced entry age will result  in disparities in the system  where children of the same birth cohort are placed in different academic years.

“This inconsistency gives rise to perceived discrimination and places unnecessary pressure on families to push children into early entry, regardless of their developmental readiness.

“From an educational perspective, mixed-age classrooms with noticeable developmental gaps also present challenges for teachers in managing learning outcomes, classroom discipline, and student wellbeing,” Voon pointed out.

She stressed that a standardised entry age would enable educators and parents to better monitor and support students’ cognitive, emotional, and social development during this critical stage of formal education.

She pointed that standardisation will enable teachers and parents to more effectively monitor pupils’ cognitive, emotional, and social readiness, ensuring that children enter Primary One at an age appropriate to their mental development.

“MoE is therefore urged to establish a single, clearly defined official entry age for Primary One and if decided on 6 years old then let all children prepare for entry at 6 years old .

“I also propose that the new policy for entry into Primary One to be enforced at a later date taking into consideration  the present 6 years old and 5 years old who may not be ready yet for the new system .

“I also urge the ministry to communicate the new policy clearly and effectively to schools, educators, and parents for smoother implementation of the new policy.

“Clarity and consistency in this matter are essential to protect children’s best interests, reduce systemic inequality, and strengthen confidence in Malaysia’s education governance,” Voon stressed.

 

Richard Rapu third MP from Sarawak asking prime minister for an answer who approved move by Petronas to take legal action

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 27 2026: Another Member of Parliament (MP) from Sarawak has urged the government to provide a firm explanation on Petronas' legal action in the Federal Court, involving the federal and Sarawak government as respondents.

Dr Richard Rapu: Is a company of this size acting on its own without a political mandate? 

 

Betong MP Dr Richard Rap warned the legal action could undermine the foundation of federalism and the spirit of the Malaysia Agreement 1963.

 

Speaking in the debate on the Motion to Express Thanks for the Royal Address in the Dewan Rakyat yesterday, he asked the federal government to explain who approved the suit and whether it had a political mandate.

 

“Who approved this suit? The Prime Minister? The Cabinet? Or no political mandate at all?” he said.

He also stressed that Petronas is not a private company because it is fully owned by the federal government and is accountable to the prime minister, thus raising the question of whether the decision to take legal action was made without political direction.

 

“Is a company of this size acting on its own without a political mandate? If so, the government has lost control of the country's strategic assets. If not, the government must be held responsible for this conflict,” he said.

 

Richard also warned that the government should not talk about MA63 on the political stage but at the same time challenge it through the court process, describing the matter as a dangerous precedent for the future of the Malaysian Federation.

 

He said the action as well as the several of Petronas’ subsidiaries in filing a suit against the Sarawak government should not be seen as a mere corporate issue, but rather touches on the federation-Sarawak relationship and Sarawak's position as a founding partner of the federation.

 

"When Petronas and its subsidiaries sued the Sarawak government, it was not just a corporate issue. It touched on federalism, MA63 and the sovereignty of the founding partners of the Federation," he said.

 

Rapu questioned why the court action occurred when negotiations between the parties involved were still ongoing, besides Petros having been recognised as a gas aggregator and a joint declaration had been signed.

 

Puncak Borneo MP Willie Mongin and Sri Aman Doris Brodie have also asked the prime minister and federal government to explain who sanctioned and authorised to file the court action.

 

They also asked whether Petronas, being under the control of the prime minister’s department, acted on its own.