Kota Kinabalu: CM Datuk Seri Hajiji said the view expressed by Law and Institutional Reform Minister Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said regarding the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) represents her opinion.
“That is her opinion...we (State Government) are continuing with the negotiations to realise those Malaysia Agreement 1963 matters still unresolved,” he said.
Advertisement
Earlier in his speech, Hajiji expressed his appreciation to the Unity Government led by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim for its commitment and dedication in helping to resolve many long-outstanding matters under MA63.
“The State Government will continue to strengthen relations and maintain close, continuous and constructive cooperation with the Federal Government to ensure that the interests and wellbeing of the people of Sabah are always safeguarded,” said the Chief Minister.
Azalina was reportedly as saying that MA63 does not contain provisions relating to the ownership, management or regulation of oil and gas resources, arguing that the sector is instead governed by the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA), which vests ownership and rights over petroleum resources in Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas).
Azalina said while MA63 serves as the founding document of Malaysia, it is silent on petroleum matters. She also noted that MA63 does not define the roles of petroleum-related entities such as Petronas or Sarawak’s Petroleum Sarawak Bhd (Petros).
Azalina further stressed that issues surrounding gas distribution are currently before the Federal Court, adding that the Government will abide by the court’s final decision on the matter.
Azalina’s remarks drew criticism from several East Malaysian lawmakers and activists, who argue that her interpretation of MA63 is overly narrow.
Among the counter-arguments raised is the principle of residual power, with critics such as Senator Robert Lau and Baru Bian maintaining that “silence does not mean surrender”.
They contend that since land and minerals were not explicitly transferred to Federal jurisdiction under MA63, these matters should remain within state authority.
Others have pointed to the Sarawak Oil Mining Ordinance (OMO) 1958, which predates the formation of Malaysia and was never repealed, as evidence of Sarawak’s inherent rights over its oil and gas resources.
Opponents of Azalina’s view also argue that MA63 was intended to safeguard the autonomy of Sabah and Sarawak as founding partners of the Federation, and that the application of Federal laws such as the PDA to override state rights runs contrary to the spirit and intent of the agreement.
