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He said Ordinance vested full authority over petroleum in the state government and was never lawfully repealed.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.
No comments:
Post a Comment