Fulfilling MA63 demands was one of the initial directives I set when I became prime minister, despite the criticisms. Sometimes the opposition criticises me, alleging that I’m afraid of losing support … .
– Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim
For decades, Sarawak has stood firm in fighting for its legitimate rights to its oil and gas resources, a matter entrenched in history, law, and justice. Yet, time and again, Malayan leaders, backed by public relations machinery and mercenary journalists, attempt to discredit these rightful claims with flawed arguments and selective interpretations of constitutional and maritime law.
Former law minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim recently characterised Sarawak’s position as a “misunderstanding of maritime law”, but his statements are not only misleading – they are also a blatant disregard for the historical and legal foundations of Sarawak’s rights.
Allow me to address these arguments head-on in defence of Sarawak’s sovereignty over its resources.
Not many would understand the Sarawak (Alteration of Boundaries) Order in Council, 1954, an important legal instrument that extended Sarawak’s boundaries to include its continental shelf and the seabed and subsoil beneath the high seas adjacent to its territorial waters.
The extension was not arbitrary; it was grounded on the understanding that oil and gas resources lay beneath the seabed. And the decision, made during British colonial administration, anticipated the significant economic potential of offshore resource exploitation.
Zaid’s argument that the extension is a “misunderstanding of maritime law” ignores the foundational role of the Order in Council. His distinction between “territorial limits” and “exploitability” is an exercise in fault-finding.
The extension of boundaries to include the seabed and subsoil was not about territorial waters alone but about resource jurisdiction – a critical distinction that predates the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos).
The Oil Mining Ordinance (OMO) of 1958 further solidified Sarawak’s rights to regulate and manage oil and gas resources within its boundaries, as defined by the 1954 Order. This ordinance empowers the state to issue prospecting licences, mining leases, and certificates.
Contrary to federal assertions, the OMO was never repealed. Section 13(a) of the Petroleum Mining Act (PMA) 1966, cited by Zaid, purportedly limits the OMO’s offshore application but fails to address the constitutional requirement that state laws on land and natural resources prevail.
Moreover, the 1974 Petroleum Development Act (PDA), which vested all petroleum ownership in Petronas, does not override the OMO. The PDA does not explicitly exempt Petronas from compliance with Sarawak’s valid state laws, nor does it nullify the constitutional guarantees provided under the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.
In Malaysia, the Federal Constitution is supreme; and under the Ninth Schedule, land and its associated resources are state matters. Item 2 of the State List explicitly grants Sarawak legislative and executive authority over “land”, including the issuance of prospecting licences and mining leases.
Federal authority over natural resource development, under Item 8(j) of the Federal List, is expressly subject to this state authority. Zaid and federal leaders conveniently overlook this critical constitutional hierarchy.
I would like to make it clear yet again that our claims are not an attempt to rewrite history but to rectify decades of exploitation that have deprived my state of its rightful share of wealth.
Since the formation of Malaysia, Sarawak has contributed nearly RM1 trillion to federal coffers through oil and gas revenues while receiving a paltry 5 per cent royalty. Isn’t this gross injustice to Sarawak which helped form Malaysia? This glaring inequity is a betrayal of the promises of equal partnership enshrined in the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
Some leaders in Malaya, whom I have the privilege to regularly enjoy discussions over brekkie, argue that Sarawak did not protest when Shell, a foreign entity, reaped the benefits of oil and gas extraction.
This argument is insincere. Shell operated under agreements with the colonial administration, and the legal framework at the time – such as the 1954 Order and the 1958 OMO – was designed to regulate such activities. Post-Malaysia, however, the federal government centralised control through the PDA, stripping Sarawak of its rights without due consultation.
The issue is not about Shell’s historical role but about federal overreach and the continued denial of Sarawak’s rightful claims.
Here I would like to argue that when our leaders in the 1970s signed the PDA, they were ill-advised. Had they known of the consequences of their action, they would have thought twice about agreeing to sign away our wealth!
Nevertheless, it’s never too late to right a wrong. Is it too much to ask for our fair share of our resources. We have been left far behind in terms of infrastructure and development.
We are now moving forward with state-owned Petroleum Sarawak Berhad (Petros) to reclaim control over our resources – an initiative that reflects a legitimate aspiration to manage resources in line with state laws and constitutional provisions.
The question should not be why Sarawak did not act earlier but why the federal government continues to resist equitable resource-sharing today!
Zaid’s argument that “exploitability” and “territorial limits” are distinct concepts is flawed. The 1954 Order explicitly extended Sarawak’s boundaries to include the continental shelf, where oil and gas are found. This was not an arbitrary designation but a deliberate decision to secure jurisdiction over these resources. The OMO 1958 further reinforced this jurisdiction, predating federal laws like the PDA.
He claims that the PMA and PDA supersede Sarawak’s state laws, but this ignores the Constitution’s supremacy. Parliament cannot enact laws that contravene constitutional provisions. The PDA’s centralisation of resource ownership in Petronas lacks constitutional backing, as it disregards Sarawak’s authority over land and natural resources.
Zaid and other federal voices argue that Unclos and the Territorial Sea Act 2012 negate Sarawak’s claims. However, Unclos governs international maritime boundaries, not internal jurisdiction. Sarawak’s rights over its continental shelf are grounded in domestic laws, the 1954 Order, and constitutional guarantees, independent of international treaties.
Our claim is not merely a legal or constitutional issue but a matter of economic justice. The state’s vast oil and gas reserves have been a basis of Malaysia’s economic development, funding infrastructure, education, and national projects. Yet Sarawakians have seen little return on this wealth.
Please understand that calls for greater revenue-sharing and control over resources are not demands for secession but for fairness.
Politically, Sarawak’s leadership has been cautious but firm. The GPS state government under Premier Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Abang Johari has consistently sought an amicable resolution, preferring collaboration to confrontation. However, federal intransigence risks escalating tensions. Sarawak is not asking for charity but for its rightful dues under the law and the Constitution.
Our contributions to Malaysia’s economic prosperity are undeniable. The state has sacrificed its resources for national development, and it is time for Putrajaya to recognise this. Respecting Sarawak’s legal rights, honouring the spirit of MA63, and ensuring fair revenue-sharing are not optional – they are obligations.
Putrajaya must abandon its dismissive attitude and engage in meaningful dialogue. Sarawak’s demands for a larger share of oil and gas revenue, greater access to natural gas for industrial development, and regulatory control over its resources are legitimate. These are not the grievances of a rebellious state but the rightful claims of a founding partner in the Malaysian federation.
Remember, our claim to its oil and gas resources is rooted in history, law, and constitutional principles. The 1954 Order in Council and the 1958 Oil Mining Ordinance provide an unassailable legal foundation for these rights. Putrajaya’s attempts to undermine these claims through selective interpretations of maritime and constitutional law are not only flawed but unjust.
For too long, Sarawak has been treated as a resource-rich periphery, its wealth siphoned off to fund national ambitions while its people receive crumbs. This must end!
Sarawak is not asking for special treatment but for equity, fairness, and respect. It is time for Putrajaya to honour its commitments, respect Sarawak’s sovereignty over its resources, and ensure a fair and just partnership within the Malaysian federation.
Let Sarawak’s roots, deeply entrenched in its oil and gas wealth, continue to nourish the nation – not as a subservient provider but as an equal partner.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune.
