In a recent discourse, the Law and Institutional Reform Minister, Datu Sri Azalina Osman Syed, stated in parliament that the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) contains no explicit mention of oil and gas ownership or regulation, implying that these resources automatically fall under federal government control and, by extension, Petronas. This assertion, while seemingly straightforward, has been met with strong rebuttal, highlighting a critical omission in understanding the foundational principles of Malaysia's formation.

This article delves into the core arguments that challenge this interpretation, asserting that the spirit and intent of MA63, coupled with historical context and subsequent legal developments, firmly establish the resource autonomy of Sabah and Sarawak.

Hard Fact Number One: MA63, IGC Report, and Resource Autonomy
The Malaysia Agreement 1963 was not intended to be an exhaustive list of every single resource. Instead, it served as the foundational document outlining the terms of entry for Sabah and Sarawak into the Malaysian federation. To fully comprehend MA63, one must refer to its instruction manual: the Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) Report 1962. This crucial document explicitly states that Sabah and Sarawak would retain control over their land, forests, rivers, and natural resources. Given that oil and gas originate from land and seabed, and land is unequivocally a state matter, the resource autonomy of these states becomes evident.

Hard Fact Number Two: Federal Constitutional Amendments Due to MA63
The significance of MA63 is further underscored by the amendments made to the federal constitution. Articles 95D, 112C, and 161E were not mere charitable gestures but fundamental conditions of the agreement. These amendments were specifically designed to guarantee Sabah and Sarawak special legislative and financial autonomy, including vital revenue rights. If MA63 truly held no implications for resources, there would have been no imperative for Malaya to enshrine such protections within the constitution. The existence of these constitutional safeguards implicitly acknowledges the pre-existing rights and resources of Sabah and Sarawak.

Hard Fact Number Three: The Petroleum Development Act 1974 Came Later
A pivotal point in this discussion is the timeline of legislative acts. The Petroleum Development Act 1974, often cited as the governing law for oil and gas, was enacted 11 years after the formation of Malaysia in 1963 and the signing of MA63. Malaysia was formed in 1963, with Sabah and Sarawak joining as equal partners in the same year. It is a fundamental principle that a post-MA63 federal law cannot unilaterally erase or supersede pre-existing rights established by MA63. To suggest otherwise would be a constitutional overreach, effectively undermining the very agreement that brought the federation into existence.

Hard Fact Number Four: Petronas's Existence and Assigned Rights
The establishment of Petronas and its operations further illustrate the argument for state resource rights. If Petronas automatically owned all oil resources, there would have been no necessity for Sabah and Sarawak to sign agreements assigning their rights to the national oil company. One does not assign something they never owned. The act of requiring these agreements from Sabah and Sarawak is a clear indication that these states held proprietary rights over their resources, which they were compelled to assign.

Hard Fact Number Five: Courts and Moral Authority
While it is acknowledged that the matter may be before the federal court, it is crucial to distinguish between legal interpretation and historical revisionism. Courts interpret laws as they are written, but they do not rewrite history or the foundational agreements upon which a nation is built. Furthermore, laws passed by parliament, especially a parliament that for decades treated Sabah and Sarawak as mere
fixed deposits rather than founding partners, do not always equate to legitimacy. Historical examples such as apartheid, emergency laws, and colonialism, while legal in their time, were not legitimate. Therefore, relying solely on legal technicalities without acknowledging the moral and historical context of MA63 is insufficient.

Conclusion: MA63 is Not Weak, But Systematically Ignored
The argument that MA63 is silent on oil and gas is akin to claiming a birth certificate says nothing about kidneys, therefore the hospital owns them. MA63 is not weak; it has been systematically ignored. Sabah and Sarawak are not seeking favors; they are demanding the rights that were never surrendered. When arguments are made that these rights are not explicitly written, it often masks an underlying hope that the historical context of Malaysia's formation has been forgotten.

The joke, ultimately, is in pretending that this is merely a legal technicality, when in reality, it represents the unfinished business of Malaysia itself. The documents have been read, the dates checked, and the money followed. The truth lies in the foundational agreement and the subsequent actions that have systematically undermined it.

 
#chatgpt #deepseek #grok #manus #gemini #google.com #MA63 #PDA74 #TSA2012 #MALAYSIA #SARAWAK #PBK #INDEPENDENCE #PETRO #PETRONAS #IGC #UN #FEDERAL #DUN