KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 29 2026: Bandar Kuching MP Dr Kelvin Yii has told federal minister Azalina Othman Said that her interpretation of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) is narrow and does not into account the historical context and laws of each region holistically.
Bandar Kuching MP Dr Kelvin Yii: Here is a historical truth that we must not forget: If the federal government had the original, constitutional title to petroleum, then there would be no need for the Petroleum Development Act 1974 & the Territorial Sea Act 2012.
He said MA63 is not just about discussing resources, but about discussing the foundation of Malaysian federation.
“We are here to talk about a promise that is carved not in the sand, but in our highest law: the Federal Constitution, which was born from MA63,” he said during the debate on motion of thanks on the Royal Address in Parliament today.
“MA63 is not an ordinary document. It is a nation-building contract. It is the legal and political foundation on which Malaysia was formed as a federation of distinct entities, namely Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak, each with its own history, laws and sovereign nature.
“To claim that MA63 is irrelevant to natural resources simply because the words “oil and gas” do not appear verbatim is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the constitutional compact works,” Dr Yii said.
“This narrow reading is “strategically incomplete” and misses the purpose of MA63, which is not to list every sector, but to safeguard Sarawak’s autonomy and equal status as a founding partner of Malaysia.
“Let us be clear: MA63 was never a statute about pipes or drilling licenses. It is Malaysia’s birth certificate. Nor can it be read exclusively in isolation,” he added.
He said to understand its true meaning and intent, MA63 must be read in conjunction with the entire body of founding documents, especially the Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) Report on which it is based.
He stressed that it is this collective agreement that determines how sovereignty, legislative power and economic control will be divided, saying “its legal force is enshrined in the Federal Constitution itself.”
Yii said the Constitution is clear that land and natural resources are State matters, stating that this was true in 1963, and it remains true today.
“For Sabah and Sarawak, this is further protected by specific guarantees such as Article 95D,” he argued.
Yii said the principle of state ownership is absolute and rooted in the definition of land, precisely, the Sarawak Land Code defines state land as including the sea within its extended boundaries.
“What was once called Crown Land before 1963, became, definitively, state land after Malaysia Day,” he pointed out.
“Why? Because when sovereignty was transferred by the Queen under MA63, it was transferred to the Sarawak government, not to the federation.
“Sovereignty over Sarawak, and with it the ownership and possession of the land and resources in Sarawak, was never vested in the federal government.
“This position was reinforced during our period of "self-governance", from July 22, 1963, until we helped form Malaysia on September 16 of the same year,” he said.
Dr Yii reminds Azalina that oil and gas do not float in the air, but are found underground and under the seabed.
“Here is a historical truth that we must not forget: If the federal government had the original, constitutional title to petroleum, then there would be no need for the Petroleum Development Act 1974 & the Territorial Sea Act 2012.
“Whether we agree or disagree with this act or who passed it first is another discussion.
“However, this Act exists for one reason only, that is, because the ownership was not federal in the first place.
“Parliament enacted the law to gain control, not to confirm existing rights.
“So, when Sarawak exercised its rights under the Oil Mining Ordinance 1958, it was not an act of protest.
“It was an act of legitimate continuation. It is the exercise of power and sovereignty that is the basis for the formation of a federation and in my view, a right that should not have been surrendered in the first place.
“And I know that some aspects of this issue are now under consideration in the courts and I think that is the most appropriate arena to determine the validity of the interpretation of the constitution and our rights under MA63.
“I am confident in the rights that we have and await the decision of the court,” he said.
He also told Azalina that no rational government or territory would enter into a federation only to surrender its sovereignty and its major natural resources without a clear agreement.
“Acts of Parliament do not override constitutional structure. Political convenience does not defeat the conditions of establishment. Gradual centralization does not extinguish
“The rights of Sabah and Sarawak are not a demand. They are a constitutional legacy, born of sovereign ownership that was never ceded.
“It is time that legacy is respected, fully, according to the original offer.
“We are not asking above and beyond, but what is afforded and promised to our forefathers during the formation of Malaysia,” he said.
In a written reply to a question raised by Saratok Member of Parliament Ali Biju in the Dewan Rakyat on January 26, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Azalina Othman Said 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.
