Recent remarks by prominent figures such as Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah emphasize the need for a strong federal unit for national security and resource management. However, this perspective fails to consider the critical historical and legal contexts that underpin Sarawak’s rightful position.

The Historical Context of Sarawak’s Resource Ownership
The Oil Mining Ordinance (OMO), established prior to Malaysia's formation, explicitly delineates Sarawak's rights over its oil and gas resources. This ordinance provided the operational framework for Sarawak well before the enactment of the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) in 1974. Notably, the PDA was signed by then Chief Minister Abdul Rahman Ya'kub, but this act has been challenged on legal grounds, as it is argued that Ya'kub lacked the authority to unilaterally cede Sarawak’s resource rights without adequate consultation with the State Legislative Assembly (DUN) or Parliament.

This raises a fundamental question: Can an agreement executed under dubious circumstances truly bind Sarawak to the terms set forth in the PDA? Many believe it cannot. The narrative suggesting that the federal government gained outright ownership of Sarawak’s resources through the PDA is misleading. It is critical to emphasize that Sarawak retains ownership of its oil and gas, a fact that must be respected and honored. Moreover, Petroleum Development Act 1974 was passed as law during Malaysia Emergency Period but PDA1974 became null and void after Prime Minister Najib repealed Malaysia Emergency Law.

Claims that Sarawak needed federal intervention due to issues with Shell contradict the long-standing relationship between the Sarawak and the oil company. Asserting that Sarawak’s leadership lacked the capability to negotiate favorable terms undermines the history of effective governance and negotiation strategies that have characterized Sarawak's leadership.

Moreover, the assertion that Sarawak's government willingly surrendered a significant portion of its resources to the federal government, settling for a mere 5% in royalties, warrants scrutiny. The decision-making processes behind these agreements should be transparent and genuinely reflect the best interests of Sarawak's people.

Addressing Current and Future Challenges
While it is true that federalism offers certain protective benefits regarding national security—especially amid regional geopolitical tensions—these challenges do not diminish Sarawak’s rights. According to Sarawak government, it's push for greater autonomy over its resources is not a call for separation but a quest for fair representation and equitable resource distribution within the federation. Failure to fulfil promises stated in the Malaysia Agreement 1963 will cause disintegration of federation of Malaysia (Federation of federation of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak [ and Singapore which left federation in 1965. In fact its separation had long caste doubt on the validity of Malaysia Agreement 1963].

Sarawak’s recent efforts to reclaim its role in gas aggregation from Petronas underscore the Sarawak’s determination to assert its rights and responsibilities. This initiative is crucial for Sarawak to enhance its economic position and ensure that its resources directly benefit its people.

Conclusion
Ultimately, the conversation around Sarawak’s autonomy and resource rights must prioritize historical accuracy, legal legitimacy, and a commitment to equitable governance. Strengthening Sarawak’s position within the framework of federalism involves acknowledging its rights, respecting its history, and ensuring that the Sarawak's needs and aspirations are addressed in any future agreements.

Sources: 

5pc payment was S’wak’s idea, says Razaleigh

             
Federalism Strengthens Malaysia: A Unified Nation Begins at the Core

Malaysia: Fulfill Promise to Repeal Abusive Laws