Without Malaysia Agreement 1963, there would be no Malaysia, no constitution, no petroleum devt Act

KUCHING: United Peo­ple’s Party ( UPP) says if Sarawak govern­ment did not sign the Malaysia Agree­ment 1963 (MA63), Sarawakians would have been reap­ing the ben­e­fits from its own nat­u­ral wealth since 1963, in­stead of having to beg for money from the fed­eral govern­ment.

     UPP said it did not want this to hap­pen again.
   “No more,” the party said in a press state­ment re­ceived here yes­ter­day.
On this note, the Fed­eral Court has post­poned the hear­ing over the own­er­ship of Sarawak oil and gas re­sources, from yes­ter­day to June 21. The na­tional petroleum cor­po­ra­tion, Petronas, is the plain­tiff in the suit, while the Sarawak govern­ment is the de­fen­dant.

     On this note, the Fed­eral Court has post­poned the hear­ing over the own­er­ship of Sarawak oil and gas re­sources, from yes­ter­day to June 21. The na­tional petroleum cor­po­ra­tion, Petronas, is the plain­tiff in the suit, while the Sarawak govern­ment is the de­fen­dant.
     Petronas claims it has own­er­ship right to th­ese re­sources by virtue of the Petroleum De­vel­op­ment Act 1974 ( PDA74), but the Sarawak govern­ment ar­gues that the PDA74 is ul­tra vires the Malaysian Con­sti­tu­tion and there­fore, it is ‘null and void’.
     UPP, in the press state­ment, de­tailed the his­tor­i­cal back­ground, effects and events lead­ing to­wards the en­act­ment of the MA63.

     Sarawak gained its in­de­pen­dence from the UK, and was a sov­er­eign na­tion when it came to­gether with the Fed­er­a­tion of Malaya, Sin­ga­pore and North Bor­neo in form­ing Malaysia in 1963.
     “We were the own­ers of our own oil re­sources, ev­ery last drop of it. We agreed to form Malaysia based on an in­ter­na­tional agree­ment called the Malaysia Agree­ment 1963 (which was) executed by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North­ern Ire­land, and Fed­er­a­tion of Malaya, North Bor­neo, Sarawak and Sin­ga­pore.”
There were five par­ties to the Agree­ment when it was executed in Lon­don on July 9, 1963.

       There were five par­ties to the Agree­ment when it was executed in Lon­don on July 9, 1963.
       The agree­ment was reg­is­tered by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North­ern Ire­land on Sept 21, 1970.
       It is an in­ter­na­tional agree­ment be­tween sov­er­eign states that can­not be amended un­less by mu­tual con­sent of all the sig­na­to­ries. There is no amend­ment to this date. The sig­na­to­ries to the Malaysia Agree­ment re­main bound by it.
     “No law in Malaysia, not even the Con­sti­tu­tion, can amend or over­ride the Malaysia Agree­ment.  There are spe­cific safe­guards in the Malaysia Agree­ment for the rights of Sarawak and Sabah,” said UPP.

     “No law in Malaysia, not even the Con­sti­tu­tion, can amend or over­ride the Malaysia Agree­ment. There are spe­cific safe­guards in the Malaysia Agree­ment for the rights of Sarawak and Sabah,” said UPP.
     The PDA74 is only a Malaysian statute and it can­not al­ter the rights en­shrined in MA63 – the PDA74 was passed with­out the con­sent of the peo­ple of Sarawak.
       The then- chief min­is­ter ****Tun Ab­dul Rah­man Yaakub had no right to give away 100 per cent of Sarawak’s oil rights in per­pe­tu­ity with­out the con­sent of the peo­ple of Sarawak, UPP said.
       “He was act­ing be­yond his pow­ers and ju­ris­dic­tion. His ac­tion in pur­port­ing to sign away Sarawak’s oil rights was un­law­ful and we do not recog­nise his uni­lat­eral act.”
       UPP be­lieved that Petronas would not have taken ac­tion in the Fed­eral Court against Sarawak with­out the ap­proval of the prime min­is­ter.
    “But as­sum­ing that we are wrong and Petronas is on a frolic of its own with­out the knowl­edge or ap­proval of the prime min­is­ter, then we call on the prime min­is­ter to in­ter­cede and he has the author­ity to do so.”

    “But as­sum­ing that we are wrong and Petronas is on a frolic of its own with­out the knowl­edge or ap­proval of the prime min­is­ter, then we call on the prime min­is­ter to in­ter­cede and he has the author­ity to do so.”
      In this re­gard, UPP called upon Prime Min­is­ter Tun Dr Ma­hathir Mohammad to abide by and ful­fil the Pakatan Hara­pan ( PH) man­i­festo to up­hold and re­store the rights of the par­ties to the MA63.
       The restora­tion of such rights is clearly in­con­sis­tent with the Petronas suit, which is premised solely on the PDA.
       “Since the Malaysia Agree­ment is an in­ter­na­tional agree­ment signed and reg­is­tered in Lon­don, the law of the con­tract is the law in the United Kingdom. UPP is of the view that it is open to the govern­ment of Sarawak, a sig­na­tory to the Malaysia Agree­ment, to file a suit in Lon­don to seek rel­e­vant declara­tory re­lief on the in­ter­pre­ta­tion of the Malaysia Agree­ment in re­spect of Sarawak’s rights aris­ing un­der the Malaysia Agree­ment. We urge the Sarawak govern­ment to con­sider tak­ing such a step, in­stead of just de­fend­ing the Petronas suit.

       “Since the Malaysia Agree­ment is an in­ter­na­tional agree­ment signed and reg­is­tered in Lon­don, the law of the con­tract is the law in the United Kingdom. UPP is of the view that it is open to the govern­ment of Sarawak, a sig­na­tory to the Malaysia Agree­ment, to file a suit in Lon­don to seek rel­e­vant declara­tory re­lief on the in­ter­pre­ta­tion of the Malaysia Agree­ment in re­spect of Sarawak’s rights aris­ing un­der the Malaysia Agree­ment. We urge the Sarawak govern­ment to con­sider tak­ing such a step, in­stead of just de­fend­ing the Petronas suit.
     “We also call upon the prime min­is­ter to direct Petronas to stay fur­ther pro­ceed­ings on the suit in or­der for the rights of the par­ties to the Malaysia Agree­ment to be de­cided first.
       “The Malaysia Agree­ment su­per­sedes the PDA and the Con­sti­tu­tion. With­out the Malaysia Agree­ment, there would be no Malaysia and there­fore, no Con­sti­tu­tion and no PDA,” UPP said.
       “Ask­ing a Malaysian Court to in­ter­pret the PDA with­out first recog­nis­ing the supremacy of the Malaysia Agree­ment is like looking at a leaf on a tree with­out recog­nis­ing that, with­out the root, there would be no tree and no leaf. The leaf ( like the PDA) is in­signif­i­cant. The root gives life to the tree just like the Malaysia Agree­ment gave life to Malaysia.
       “With­out the Malaysia Agree­ment, there is no Fed­er­a­tion of Malaysia — it is as sim­ple as that. Those who would dis­re­gard the Malaysia Agree­ment are in fact, sub­vert­ing the for­ma­tion of Malaysia in the first place.”

       UPP said Sarawak is en­ti­tled to all its rights un­der MA63. In this re­gard, it is ‘to be the master of its own re­sources’.
     “For too many decades, Sarawak’s wealth has been taken by the states of Malaya for their own ben­e­fit and we get a pit­tance in re­turn. The Fed­er­a­tion of Malaya has ben­e­fited hugely from Sarawak’s re­sources at the ex­pense of Sarawakians. This must stop now be­cause the peo­ple of Sarawak have wo­ken up,” said UPP, re­fer­ring to the re­sult of the May 9 gen­eral election where PH took over the fed­eral govern­ment at the ex­pense of the 60-year- old Barisan Na­sional (BN).
“We want the restora­tion of our rights and we will fight with ev­ery re­source we have to regain those rights. We not only want our rights re­stored, but we also want com­pen­sa­tion for all the wealth taken from Sarawak for the ben­e­fit of the Fed­er­a­tion of Malaya,” UPP said.

My comments:
I guess that Petronas is like  riding on a tiger hard to get off it now.  In Chinese, we say [骑虎难下].  They must have underestimated the Sarawak government too much.  With the wide awareness of Sarawakians over our sovereignty rights  to back up the Sarawak governemt, Petronas is in troubled water now unless they want to comply to our ruling to apply for the licence to continue doing their business here.

In the age of internet and in the year, 2018 when almost everything starts afresh and moves in the direction of civilisation and by law.  We are not in 1970s or 1980s or 1990s.  So Petronas should wake up to this new era and new practice.