KUCHING, Jan 29 2026: Progressive Democratic Party (PDP) vice president Baru Bian today reminded federal minister Azalina Othman Said that Sarawak has never surrendered or transferred the oil and gas ownership or regulatory authority to the federation of Malaysia in the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) or its accompanying instruments.
Baru Bian: Oil and gas, being resources beneath land and territorial waters, fall squarely within this domain unless expressly transferred—which they were not.
The Ba’Kelalan Sarawak Legislative Member (SLM) said under constitutional principles, power not expressly ceded remain with the original authority.
He said he disagreed with Azalina’s statement asserting that there is “nothing in the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) on oil and gas ownership and regulation.”
“While it is true that MA63 does not explicitly spell out oil and gas ownership or regulatory powers, constitutional interpretation cannot be reduced to literal silence alone.
“A proper reading of MA63 must take into account historical jurisdiction, pre-Malaysia laws, and the legal position of Sarawak at the time of the formation of Malaysia,” he said.
He stressed that before September 16 1963, Sarawak was a self-governing territory with clear jurisdiction over its land and natural resources.
“This included petroleum resources, which were regulated under laws such as the Sarawak Oil Mining Ordinance and related legislation in force prior to Malaysia’s formation,” he said.
Baru, a practising lawyer, pointed out that MA63 must be read with the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Report.
He added the IGC Report, which forms the backbone of MA63, consistently affirms that Borneo States were to retain control over land and natural resources.
“Oil and gas, being resources beneath land and territorial waters, fall squarely within this domain unless expressly transferred—which they were not,” he said.
He said the enactment of the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA74) Is evidence of lack of federal jurisdiction.
He added that the enactment of PDA itself is telling, saying that if the federal government already possessed inherent constitutional jurisdiction over petroleum resources, there would have been no necessity for Parliament to pass a law to vest ownership in Petronas.
“Legislation is not enacted to claim powers already possessed; it is enacted to create or acquire authority that did not previously exist.
“The PDA is therefore strong evidence that petroleum jurisdiction did not originally lie with the federal government,” he said.
Baru said constitutional interpretation must be historical and purposive, saying that MA63 is not an ordinary agreement; it is a foundational constitutional compact.
He said courts, scholars, and constitutional practice consistently affirm that such documents must be interpreted purposively, with due regard to historical context and the intentions of the parties at the time.
“To argue that the absence of explicit wording extinguishes Sarawak’s original rights is both legally
unsound and historically inaccurate,” he argued.
He stated that respecting MA63 is about constitutional fidelity, not politics.
He said this issue is not about confrontation with the federal government, nor is it about undermining national unity.
“It is about honouring 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 stressed that the assertion that MA63 is irrelevant to oil and gas because it is silent on the matter oversimplifies a complex constitutional reality.
He said silence does not mean surrender, saying that history, law, and subsequent legislation all point to the same conclusion that Sarawak never relinquished its original jurisdiction over oil and gas.
“A mature federation must be willing to confront these truths honestly, in the spirit of MA63 and genuine federalism,” he added.
No comments:
Post a Comment