SARAWAKIANS expecting goodies in 2025 were right to skip the national budget tabled by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in Parliament last month.
They were right to wait another three weeks until the 2025 Sarawak Budget — because that’s where the good news is at.
On Monday (Nov 11), Premier Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Abang Johari Tun Openg was on top form when he tabled the budget, valued at a jaw-dropping RM15.8 billion, the highest in Sarawak’s history.
This was 16 per cent increase from the RM13.6 billion allocated for the 2024 operating and development expenditures.
Sarawak is also expecting a revenue of RM14.2 billion in 2025, and against the total ordinary expenditure of RM13.7 billion, the budget is expected to generate a surplus of RM486 million.
To think of it, just seven years ago in the 2018 Sarawak Budget, Sarawak had to be contented with a budget of only RM5.78 billion against an expected revenue of RM5.53 billion.
Today, the amount has almost tripled, both in our expenditure — the budget itself — as well as the revenues from it.
To think of it, just seven years ago, Sarawak had to deal with declining revenues, today, how things have changed.
History will remember Abang Johari fondly as the person who took Sarawak by the scruff of its neck, rescued it from certain economic doldrums and transformed it into a financial juggernaut. That is the Premier for you.
But numbers are not everything — as some would say and to an extent, they are right. There is no point in accumulating vast riches if it’s not benefitted, enjoyed and cascaded down to the people.
In this aspect, the Sarawak government delivered, empathically. The initiatives implemented by this government will put other states to shame.
The newest initiative, the Sarawak Basic Needs Scheme provides assistance worth RM250 to RM800 annually, expected to benefit 850,000 people. This is the latest in a long line of welfare initiatives, under the “cradle to grave” social safety net.
Similarly, education gets a shot in the arm where the Sarawak government introduced the pocket money assistance of RM1,200 for Sarawakian students.
This complements ongoing education initiatives such as the free laptops, book vouchers, flight ticket subsidies and discounts on PTPTN repayments.
Aggregator issue aggravated
While there is a lot to talk about the budget, ongoing issues take centre stage during debates by Sarawak assemblymen.
One of it is the appointment of gas aggregator. Sarawak recognises its oil and gas company PETROS as the sole gas aggregator. However, national oil and gas PETRONAS has appeared to not be in agreement over the matter.
PETROS was given full authority to manage gas distribution in Sarawak from July 1. However, PETRONAS sought for extension on the takeover, due to worry of LNG distribution being affected.
Three months in ‘injury time’ was given and on Oct 31, the Premier announced that talks had concluded and the matter was resolved, only for PETRONAS to issue a statement a few hours later saying it was still in discussions on the proposed implementation of the Distribution of Gas Ordinance (DGO).
This “push-pull” attitude was lambasted by elected representatives, particularly Utility and Telecommunication Minister Datuk Seri Julaihi Narawi, who called for a resolution to the matter at the soonest.
He reiterated that Sarawak’s decision to appoint PETROS as the sole gas aggregator was non-negotiable adding: “There are no other gas aggregators in Sarawak except PETROS.”
Plain speaking Stakan assemblyman Datuk Hamzah Brahim castigated the national oil and gas company and called for it to respect Sarawak laws.
“Don’t let this matter, the stubborn attitude of PETRONAS, lead to the downfall of the Madani government,” he said, adding that Sarawak felt that its laws were being belittled and disrespected.
The aggregator issue has also been a topic of discussion on social media where ill-informed netizens have seemingly questioned Sarawak for introducing such law — the Distribution of Gas Ordinance.
There is something to be said about ignorance, idiocy and the inability to understand constitutional law when describing these people. They are a special kind indeed.
The DGO was legislated by the Sarawak Assembly, the highest law-making body in Sarawak, representing the people of Sarawak.
You can’t simply dismiss it, expecting nothing will happen — and those operating in Sarawak have to comply with Sarawak laws.
Knowledge is light. It helps us see better and guide us in our lives. These netizens and those who share the same views are light on knowledge. That’s the difference.
One-third for Sarawak, Sabah
Another key issue that is being raised is the one-third representation in Parliament. The fact is that this issue has rubbed some people in Malaya the wrong way.
The demand is simple. Sarawak, Sabah must have one-third representation in the Malaysia Parliament to ensure its status and special rights continue to be preserved and protected.
The gist is this: Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore used to account for just over one-third of the seats in Dewan Rakyat. They held 55 seats out of the 159-member federal Parliament or 34.6 per cent.
After Singapore left the federation, the seats did not go to Sarawak and Sabah, but to Malaya.
This tips the power balance to Malaya’s favour which now does not need the say-so from the Borneo states — its two remaining partners in the federation —when it comes to amending the Federal Constitution.
Theoretically, it can pass laws to the detriment of Sarawak and Sabah with no way for MPs from Borneo to block such attempts.
There is a historical basis to this. There is also the matter of constitutional safeguards written in the Cobbold Commission and the Inter-Government Committee Report. These two documents formed the foundation to Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
Now, some are of the opinion that these documents are not binding and that constitutional safeguards are mere “suggestions”.
Tupong assemblyman Datuk Fazzrudin Abdul Rahman laid out precedents in court cases where safeguards were upheld in rulings made by the judges.
He quoted former Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi who ruled in the case of Datuk Mohd Tufail Mahmud v Ting Check Sii, who said: “Safeguards and assurances provided to Sarawak (in this case, lawyers) were critical and pivotal to secure the participation of Sarawak in the formation of Malaysia.”
Fazzrudin then made the reference to two other cases — Fung Fon Chen v Malaysia Government and Robert Linggi v Malaysia Government which echoed the same views.
These rulings affirmed that the constitutional arrangements and safeguards set out in the Cobbold Commission Report, IGC Report, and MA63 are binding and must be upheld by the Malaysian government.
“Sarawak’s claims must not only be respected and understood, but also implemented in good faith,” said Fazzrudin.
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the Sarawak Tribune.
