Robert Pei: If FG refuses to honour MS63

If the federal government remains unwilling to honour the Malaysia Agreement 1963(MA63), Sarawak must assert its right to self-determination and reclaim control over its territory and resources, including the option to exit the federation.

*THE CONCERN THAT SARAWAK’S CONTROL OVER ITS OIL AND GAS RESOURCES COULD FALL INTO CORRUPT HANDS is a valid consideration*. However, there are several reasons why Sarawak’s control might still be seen as preferable to the current federal control, even with the risk of local corruption:

1. *Greater Accountability to Local Populations*

    • *No National or Local Oversight over PDA74*: Currently under the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA74), Petronas is a deep state secret organisation not accountable to anyone except the Prime Minister of Malaysia. This has led to vast corruption as contracts are farmed to six preferred government-linked corporations and corrupt enrichment of the Malayan elites. PDA74 has also enabled the institutionalisation of the New Economic Policy leading to the creation of a race-religion apartheid state which discriminates against and oppresses minorities especially the people of Sarawak and North Borneo (Sabah). Malaya’s plunder of oil and gas used to develop Malaya has left the 2 former British colonies far behind in development as the poorest vassal states of Malaya.

    • *Sarawak Control:* Sarawak control of its petroleum resources means they are directly governed by a state-level administration, and its people are more likely to have access to local mechanisms for accountability, such as state assembly scrutiny, civil society activism, and media freedom. Federal control often distanced decision-making from the people of Sarawak, and local governments may be more responsive to the region's needs and grievances. 

    • *Empowerment through Autonomy*: With greater control over its resources, Sarawak has the potential to craft policies that are specifically tailored to its unique economic and social context. This could lead to more equitable development compared to a centralised, one-size-fits-all approach imposed by the federal government. 

2. *Restoration of Sovereignty and Self-Determination*

    • *Historical Justice*: The core argument for Sarawak's control over its resources is rooted in the historical promise made in the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63 if valid) to maintain the state’s autonomy over its land and natural resources. If Sarawak continues to be governed under federal control in this matter, it represents an ongoing violation of those agreements and a failure to address the colonial legacy. 

    • *Decolonization:* The call for Sarawak to control its resources is also part of a broader desire to decolonize the state's relationship with the federal government. While corruption is a risk, achieving local control would allow Sarawak to build its governance capacity, potentially strengthening accountability over time. 

3. *Potential for Reform and Systemic Change*

    • *Local Reform Opportunities* : While corruption is a concern, Sarawak would have the opportunity to implement reforms that address local governance issues more effectively than under the federal government. Over time, the state could introduce more robust transparency measures, anti-corruption laws, and independent auditing processes. These reforms could be more directly shaped by the will of the people and their local needs. 

    • *Leveraging External Pressure:* The international community increasingly supports resource sovereignty and governance reforms, particularly when it comes to indigenous or regional control over natural wealth. Sarawak could leverage international support to strengthen its internal governance systems and create mechanisms that reduce corruption. 

4. *Economic Disparities and Fairer Revenue Distribution*

    • *Unequal Revenue Sharing:* Sarawak has long complained about the disproportionate share of oil and gas revenue it receives from the federal government. Under federal control, much of the wealth generated from Sarawak’s resources is siphoned off to the central government, leaving the state with insufficient funding for development and social welfare. With control over its resources, Sarawak could retain a larger portion of the revenue, allowing for reinvestment in local infrastructure, education, healthcare, and social programs—essentially, a more direct benefit to its citizens. 

    • *Local Economic Control:* Sarawak could make more informed decisions about how its resources are managed, potentially ensuring that the benefits flow more directly to local communities. This would also reduce the incentive for federal corruption to drain Sarawak's wealth for national purposes that don't necessarily benefit its people. 

5. *The Risk of Federal Corruption is Also Present*

    • *Corruption at the Federal Level:* Sarawak is not the only region in Malaysia where corruption is a concern. The federal government has faced its own corruption scandals, especially regarding the management of resources, allocation of funds, and political patronage. In fact, the concentration of power at the federal level can often lead to larger-scale corruption that is harder to address at the local level. 

    • *Sarawak as a Check on National Corruption:* With Sarawak exercising control over its own resources, it could act as a check on federal overreach and corruption. It could negotiate more favourable terms for itself, preventing the central government from exploiting its resources without fair compensation or oversight. 

6. *A Pragmatic Path to Addressing Corruption*

    • *Governance Improvements Over Time:* While corruption is a risk, it is also true that governance structures can evolve. Sarawak, like many regions, has the potential to strengthen its democratic institutions and governance mechanisms if given more power and autonomy. Over time, Sarawak could potentially build better accountability structures, such as independent oversight bodies, transparent budgeting, and local civic engagement, all of which could help reduce corruption in the long run. 

    • *Collaboration with Civil Society:* The active role of local NGOs, media, and civil society organisations can also play a role in ensuring that any control over resources remains transparent and accountable. These organisations could hold the state government to account, similar to how they monitor federal practices. 

*Conclusion*

*While the risk of corruption exists under both federal and state control, the fundamental issue at stake is Sarawak's sovereignty and its historical right to control its resources.* The potential for corruption at the state level doesn't invalidate Sarawak's right to self-determination but rather highlights the need for stronger governance and accountability mechanisms, which are more likely to be developed and implemented at the local level with Sarawak in control of its own resources. Ultimately, local control would empower Sarawak to address corruption within its own systems, while also ensuring that the benefits of its resources remain more equitably distributed to its people. 

*If the federal government remains unwilling to honour the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), Sarawak must assert its right to self-determination and reclaim control over its territory and resources, including the option to exit the federation.* 

Robert Pei, 

SSRANZ 29/11/2024

My comments on: Sarawak and Malaysia can’t afford escalating O&G disputes Alina Khai -26 /11/24

 

My comments on:

Sarawak and Malaysia can’t afford escalating O&G disputes

Alina Khai   -26 Nov 2024, 09:00 AM

 

Sarawak as far as I know has been a loser in the whole game concerning its O&G resources.  Up to 2014, Malaya in the name of Malaysia has got at least RM ONE trillion just from the sales of O&G from Sarawak, which is a big, big loser.  

 

For 50 years, Sarawak has always been a loser, what can be worse for “ Sarawak becoming as the sole aggregator of natural gas”, which is legitimately owned by Sarawak?

 

Petronas won’t be a loser whether it pulls out or gives up as the gas  aggregator in Sarawak as it is not a legitimate owner of the Sarawak natural resources. 

 

To Sarawakians, we only see the great benefits and profits with the full control over the distribution and sales of natural gas within our boundaries. 

 

Return what belongs to Sarawak or be prepared to face tribunal in court to settle the dispute once and for all.  If not done properly, it should be handed to International Court of Justice.

 

Saying that Petronas has spent billions in “investment in its oil and gas (O&G) infrastructure currently underwritten by national oil corporation Petronas, is likely to dry up”, that is your business. If you can’t cope, just leave it to other business entrepreneurs.  Sarawak with rich O&G resources won’t be short of investors from countries all over the world.

 

Whether Petros Sarawak is able to get a fair bargain in its dealings with the big industrial players as Petronas or not , you don’t have to worry as Sarawak has emerged as a O&G global player.

 

Isn’t it true that Sarawak has been short-changed in the distribution of the nation’s oil wealth despite producing the largest portion of the commodity? 

About 85% of the annual federal budgets are for Malaya and hence there is a great disparity in the infrastructure development between Malaya and SarawakSabah.  Who can deny these facts and truths?

 

Malaya-centred and -minded industrial players and experts, no doubt, feel threatened to see Petros as Sarawak the sole gas aggregator. 

 

For sure,  Sarawak is well-prepared for the tasks what Petronas is doing now. Just hand over the right legitimately belonging to Sarawak, why not?

 

What a pity that Petronas have not been able to disclose officially how much it has earned  and how much it has spent in developing Sarawak’s O&G infrastructure and the sector as a whole over the decades.   What a shame!

 

Just wait and see  if Petros can replace Petronas as the long-term investor in Sarawak’s O&G.

 

Regarding capital expenditure Petronas invested, why must it be borne by Petros when Sarawak only gets 5% of royalty?   

 

Petronas earns “specifically its RM20 billion annual profit just off the gas production in Sarawak.” , which is legitimately belonging to Sarawak.

 

If the said amount is  at the disposal of Petros, who says that Petros has not the capacity to spend the same amount or more in Sarawak’s O&G sector?

 

It is ridiculous and shame of you to cry over the loss over the resources that do not belong to Petronas at all.

 

Constitutionality, it is illegal to apply PDA1974 of O&G in Sarawak and thus for the past 50 years, Petronas has committed crimes of illegality in this business in Sarawak.  This will be settled some day!

 

How can Petronas owns oil “on behalf of Malaysians” (/Malayans, not Malaysians as Sarawakians and Sabahans benefit so little from this.) as a company to own the resources of Sarawak acting against the constitutional and legitimate rights of Sarawak?  

 

It is a colonial- and pirate-mindset of Tengku Razaleigh to think so. After all, Sarawak is not a territory of Malaya.  It is very aggressive and arrogant of Tengku Razaleigh to say that Petros Sarawak can never match with Petronas meritically when you reject blatantly the right of Petros Sarawak the chance to prove itself.

 

Petronas accounts to nothing without the total feed of O&G freely from Sarawak and Sabah since the very beginning of its inception.  It is all a neo-colonialist in practice to take 9 out of 10.  It is exactly plundering and exploitation of Malaya here in Sarawak and Sabah.  

 

What is wrong with Sarawak to demand the share of the natural gas allocation to 30% from the current 5% to meet domestic needs to drive sustainable development in our land?  

 

What gains Sarawak has as against an astronomical loss being part of the Federation of Malaysia@Malaya when 95% share of O&G resources has been taken away from Sarawak?  

 

The whole-wide world only sees the progress and prosperity of Malaya at the expense of the poverty of Sarawak and Sabah.  Of course, Sarawak O&G resources also make many corrupt high ranking officers really wealthy.

 

He dares to bluff that “ the federal government pays for a number of services such as defence, which Sarawak has consistently demanded to protect its O&G resources amid rising tensions in the South China Sea.”  

 

How much in terms of revenues besides O&G has the federal government/FG collected from Sarawak?  And whose responsibility is it for the the services like defence rendering to Sarawak?  

 

FG is strongly advised and encouraged to return the autonomy all these services to release themselves.  Let Sarawak collect all the taxes and pay the FG the amount it deserves.  For sure, Sarawak can stand on its own without much hassle.

 

Shamelessy, he dares to point out the meagre raise of development financing for Sarawak as against 85% for Malaya

 

As he bluffs “under the 12th Malaysia Plan, a total of RM4.8 billion has already been allocated for Sarawak for year 2025. The state will receive yet another RM5.9 billion under next year’s budget” as compared with the amount allocated to Malaya, it is practically nothing for the proper development of Sarawak with that little.

 

It is a grave mistake of our past leaders to join Malaysia which is actually Malaya in disguise.

 

Many Sarawakians and Sabahans now question the validity of MA63 thinking that it should be settled in the International Court of Justice once and for all.  

Julaihi: Not Blackmail to ask Petronas to respect Sarawak's laws

 

Julaihi: Not blackmail to ask Petronas to respect Sarawak’s laws     By Marilyn Ten on November 18, 2024, Monday at 6:34 PM

KUCHING (Nov 18): Utility and Telecommunication Minister Dato Sri Julaihi Narawi has brushed off claims that Sarawak’s call for Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) to respect its law is an act of blackmail.

“It is neither a threat nor an act of blackmail. It is a legitimate demand grounded in legal rights,” he said.

Speaking at the State Legislative Assembly (DUN) Sitting where he delivered his ministerial winding-up speech, the Sebuyau assemblyman said Sarawak accounted for over 60 per cent of the natural gas produced in Malaysia – of which 94 per cent is used by Petronas to convert into liquefied natural gas (LNG) for export to Korea and Japan to support the industries in these countries.

“However, all the gas produced offshore Peninsular Malaysia are retained for use in the States of Malaya, to support industries and sold for power generation by independent power producers at subsidised rates.

“In stark contrast, only six per cent of Sarawak’s natural gas is allocated for local industries and power generation, with prices dictated by Petronas. Foreign investors who wish to set up industries in Sarawak were repeatedly told that there is no gas available for them.

“Consequentially, these investors chose other destinations for their investments, depriving Sarawak of crucial economic opportunities. Petronas’ gas small allocation for use in Sarawak does not support industrial development in Sarawak,” he explained.

To address this imbalance and ensure adequate supply of gas for local industries and for Sarawak’s energy transition programme, Julaihi said the Sarawak government has developed a Sarawak Gas Road Map and appointed Petroleum Sarawak Berhad (Petros) as the gas aggregator to procure, allocate and distribute gas to ensure that there would be adequate supply of gas for use by industries in Sarawak.

“At the request of the Sarawak government, Petronas has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Petros to use its best endeavour to allocate 1.2 billion standard cubic feet per day (bscf/d) by 2030 to support the Sarawak Gas Road Map.

“However, until today Petronas has yet to identify where the allocated volume of gas would be sourced and when the gas fields would be developed,” he said.

He also said that since the 1980s, Petronas had not invested in gas distribution infrastructures except to supply to the LNG plants to produce LNG for exports.

“Hence, Petros had to build a pipeline from Bintulu to deliver gas to Samalaju for both power generation and to support the heavy industries there,” he added.

He stressed the Sarawak government has always called for collaboration between Petros and Petronas but the recent conduct and action by Petronas does not demonstrate the national oil company intends to have an amicable solution.

“Regrettably, Petronas does not seem to respect and abide by our laws such as the Distribution of Gas Ordinance 2016 or to cooperate with Petros to enable Petros to carry out its statutory functions in the interests of Sarawakians.

“Compliance with these legal frameworks is not optional — it is a statutory duty that must be honoured by all parties,” he said.

He said since the enforcement of the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA), the cumulative value of petroleum produced and obtained in Sarawak by Petronas and the federal government up to 2014 was RM1 trillion, with only 5 per cent or RM 50 billion thereof returned to Sarawak in the form of cash payment pursuant to Section 4 of the PDA.

“With such enormous contribution to the national coffers, Sarawak deserves better attention, treatment and support from Petronas.

“The least Petronas should do is to comply with our laws when operating in Sarawak and allocate and make available more gas to support the industrial development of Sarawak and its transition towards a green economy,” he said.

Earlier in his speech, Julaihi said the Sarawak government’s ongoing efforts to defend its rights to natural gas resources must be respected and cannot be disputed by all parties, including Petronas and biased individuals.

“These rights, which are based on Sarawak laws that are still in force until now, are very important in ensuring the government’s efforts to be fully in control natural gas resources for the well-being of the people of Sarawak in particular and Malaysia in general.

“Therefore, I would like to reiterate that the appointment of Petros as the sole gas aggregator is final and non-negotiable. This means that there is no other gas aggregator in Sarawak except Petros,” he stressed.

He said it was high time that Malaysian leaders open their eyes and minds to see a more comprehensive national development perspective and not one that is tied to the development perspective around Putrajaya and Kuala Lumpur alone.

“Malaysia comprises of the Peninsula, Sarawak and Sabah. Therefore, this is not just about talking about the interests of Sarawak alone but also about strengthening and improving the economic sector throughout the country,” he remarked.

Julaihi：要求国油尊重砂拉越法律并非勒索

 

古晋（11月18日）：公用事业和电信部长拿督Julaihi驳斥了砂拉越要求国家石油公司（Petronas）尊重其法律是勒索行为的说法。

“

这既不是威胁，也不是勒索行为。这是基于合法权利的合法要求，”他说。

 

这位诗巫议员在州立法议会（DUN）发表部长级清算演讲时表示，砂拉越占马来西亚生产的天然气的60％以上，其中94％被马来西亚国家石油公司用于转化转化为液化天然气（LNG）出口到韩国和日本，以支持这些国家的工业。

 

“然而，马来西亚半岛近海生产的所有天然气都保留在马来亚各州使用，以支持工业，并由独立发电商以补贴价格出售用于发电。

 

“形成鲜明对比的是，砂拉越只有百分之六的天然气分配给当地工业和发电，价格由国油决定。希望在砂拉越建立工业的外国投资者一再被告知没有天然气可供他们使用。

 

“因此，这些投资者选择了其他投资目的地，从而剥夺了砂拉越重要的经济机会。国油在砂拉越使用的小额天然气分配并不支持砂拉越的工业发展。”

 

Julaihi表示，为了解决这种不平衡问题，并确保当地工业和砂拉越能源转型计划有足够的天然气供应，砂拉越政府已制定了砂拉越天然气路线图，并指定砂拉越石油公司（Petros）作为天然气聚合商，负责采购、分配和分销。天然气，以确保砂拉越工业有足够的天然气供应。

 

“应砂拉越政府的要求，国油已与 Petros 签署谅解备忘录，尽最大努力在 2030 年之前分配每天 12 亿标准立方英尺（bscf/d），以支持砂拉越天然气路线图。

 

“然而，直到今天，马来西亚国家石油公司尚未确定所分配的天然气量将来自何处以及何时开发气田，”他说。

 

他还表示，自20世纪80年代以来，国油除了向液化天然气工厂供应天然气以生产出口液化天然气外，没有投资天然气分配基础设施。

 

“因此，Petros必须从民都鲁修建一条管道，将天然气输送到Samalaju，用于发电并支持那里的重工业，”他补充道。

 

他强调，砂拉越政府一直呼吁Petronas和Petros合作，但Petronas 最近的行为和行动并不表明Petronas公司打算达成友好解决方案。

 

“遗憾的是，Petronas似乎没有尊重和遵守我们的法律，例如《2016 年天然气分配条例》，也没有与 Petros 合作，使 Petros 能够为了砂拉越人的利益履行其法定职能。”

 

“遵守这些法律框架不是可选的，而是各方必须遵守的法定义务，”他说。

 

他说，自1974年石油发展法令（PDA）实施以来，截至2014年，Petronas和联邦政府在砂拉越生产和获得的石油累计价值为1万亿令吉，其中只有5％或500亿令吉回馈给砂拉越。砂拉越根据 PDA 第 4 条以现金支付。

 

“砂拉越对国库做出如此巨大的贡献，理应得到国油更好的关注、待遇和支持。

 

他说：“国油至少应该做的是在砂拉越运营时遵守我们的法律，并分配和提供更多天然气，以支持砂拉越的工业发展及其向绿色经济的转型。”

 

朱莱希早些时候在讲话中表示，砂拉越政府捍卫其天然气资源权利的持续努力必须受到尊重，并且不能受到包括国油和有偏见的个人在内的各方的争议。

 

“这些权利是基于迄今为止仍然有效的砂拉越法律，对于确保政府努力完全控制天然气资源，以造福砂拉越人民和整个马来西亚人民的福祉非常重要。

 

“因此，我想重申，Petros 被指定为唯一的天然气聚合商是最终决定，不容谈判。这意味着除了 Petros 之外，砂拉越没有其他天然气聚合商。”

 

他说，马来西亚领导人现在应该睁开眼睛和思想，看到更全面的国家发展前景，而不是仅仅与布城和吉隆坡周围的发展前景挂钩。

 

“马来西亚由半岛、砂拉越和沙巴组成。因此，这不仅仅是谈论砂拉越的利益，也是加强和改善全国经济领域的问题。”

 

Sarawak O&G not bound by MA63 -- PBK president

Sarawak’s O&G claims not bound by MA63 — PBK president 

 https://dayakdaily.com/sarawaks-og-claims-not-bound-by-ma63-pbk-president/

Hydrogen Bus 4 only

4. Hydrogen Bus

Tuan Speaker,

A couple of weeks ago, Sarawak Metro Sdn Bhd awarded a RM122 million contract to a joint venture company comprising SKS Coachbuilders Sdn Bhd and Sun Credit Sdn Bhd for the supply of 55 units of hydrogen powered feeder buses. That means each hydrogen bus costs RM2.2 million. What a great deal!

SKS Coachbuilders Sdn Bhd a West Malaysia company has teamed up with Sun Credit Sdn Bhd a local company to meet the tender requirements set by Sarawak Metro.

What’s truly shocking is that this RM122 million contract could be awarded to Sun Credit Sdn Bhd, a company whose main business is general trading and has a paid-up capital of only RM100. Can you imagine how a company valued at just RM100 managed to secure a contract worth RM122 million from Sarawak Metro.

Tuan Speaker,

After conducting a company search on both SKS Coachbuilders and Sun Credit Sdn Bhd, I found that, for the past three financial years (2020, 2021, and 2022), both companies reported negative profits. For SKS Coachbuilders, they had a loss after tax of RM4,550,553.00 in 2020, RM4,845,794.00 in 2021, and a bigger loss of RM6,631,874.00 in 2022.   

As for Sun Credit, the losses were RM3,916,000.00 in 2020, RM2,880,000.00 in 2021 and RM3,207,000.00 in 2022.

I have gone through the tender conditions published by Sarawak Metro, and in Paragraph 4(g), it clearly states: “Average net profit for the last three financial years—2020, 2021, and 2022—must be positive, and for a joint venture, a minimum of two partners, including the lead partner, must show positive net profit.”

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that these two companies failed to meet the requirements stated in of Paragraph 4(g) of the tender conditions. My question is how then did the Tender Panel Board approve and award a contract worth hundreds of millions for hydrogen buses to these companies that are financially struggling? This raises serious concern about the competency of Sarawak Metro’ Tender Evaluation Panel. Something is very wrong here. 

Moreover, under Paragraph 4(h) of the tender it states that “the tender shall have at least one working hydrogen bus Protopype and /a working hydrogen bus developed and/or manufactured and/or supplied/sold within the year 2016-2023”. Sun Credit being a general trading company, does not meet this requirement. As for SKS Coachbuilders, their company profile shows they only deal with electric and conventional buses. So, how did they qualify under Paragraph 4(h)? The entire process seems deeply flawed and raises serious doubts about transparency and accountability of Sarawak Metro.

In any government tender process, if a bidder fails to meet the conditions outlined in the tender documents, their bid should be rejected outright. What is strange here is that despite both companies failing to meet the requirements, they were still able to be awarded with the contract by Sarawak Metro. Any reasonable person would question the integrity of this tender process. 

I urge MACC to act swiftly and launch a thorough investigation into this case along with all other contracts awarded by Sarawak Metro to uncover any misconduct or corruption. Public funds are involved here and MACC has the authority to investigate without needing the official report. This RM122 million hydrogen bus contract and all other contracts awarded by Sarawak Metro must be scrutinized.  

Tuan Speaker,

If Sarawak government truly upholds good governance and transparency, it must intervene to correct the wrong of Sarawak Metro. The state government should cancel this contract immediately and initiate a new tender process especially since it was reported that six other companies participated in the bidding. Otherwise, it may apprear that the State government is endorsing this joint venture as a way to profit from the purchase of 55 units China-made hydrogen buses.

Why hasn’t the State Integrity and Ombudsman Unit (UNION) initiated an investigation into this case? Is UNION aware of the situation, or have they been kept in the dark as well? Or perhaps UNION knows what’s happening but is unable to act due to interference from powerful individuals? These are the questions Sarawakians deserve answer to.

Let me bring to the attention of this August House some information about Sun Credit Sdn Bhd. The company search reveals that one of its shareholders and directors happens to be the Chairman of Sibu Rural District Council and the Chairman of PRS Dudong division. This raises the question: was this contract awarded based on political connections? It now seems that holding a chairman’s position in SRDC and PRS can lead to highly favourable ‘kantau deal’!

This issue certainly deserves further scrutiny to ensure that the contract was awarded fairly, with proper due diligence and competence. 

On another note, what has happened to the three hydrogen buses that were introduced for Kuching City and Damai loops back in 2021. Why are they kept suspended from service? It’s a real embarrassment for Sarawak. 

If Sarawak Metro is already struggling to manage just three hydrogen buses, I can’t imagine how they will handle a fleet of 55 or more.

What the Law graduate said

This is the response from Sarawakian, University of London, Law graduate.

"Hi Everyone,

I believe that the Act supercedes the Order even if we argue that the Order was agreed ahead. This is by the *Principle of Implied Repeal.*

Implied Repeal is when a newer Act is inconsistent with an older Act. The older Act impliedly repealed and the newer Act comes into force.

Further under the Malaysian Federal system. The Federal government has supremacy on matters in the Federal list which includes mining of resources.

My suggestion is that Sarawak Government should seek an amendment to the PDA or better yet ask the Federal Government to amend our system to follow a system similar USA & Australia. Where the States have more significant power.

I believe this should be done while the current government is in power as their political position is weaker. We should also not accept political promises. Which is not binding and is enforced arbitrarily by whoever is in power.

While this is not what people want to hear. But it is important we understand the law as it is. Not as we want it to be.

We should definitely push the Federal govt feet to the fire and truly see if they will just give us unstable political promises or make actual legal amendments.

Also I think it is high time that Sarawak & Sabah MP's create a bloc where no matter their party affiliation they will vote the same way in Parliament just like they practice in the American Congress."

Who owns O&G off Sarawak?

砂拉越海岸大陆架的石油和天然气之争

FMT 记者

-

2024 年 11 月 12 日，上午 7:30

FMT 探讨了砂拉越对其领海边缘 200 海里范围内能源资源的独家权利主张的有效性。

八打灵再也：马来西亚国家石油公司和砂拉越之间已经就谁拥有马来西亚东部沿海大陆架上的石油和天然气 (O&G) 资源的权利展开了一场争斗。

1974 年《石油开发法》(PDA) 第 2 条规定，马来西亚国家石油公司拥有所有陆上和海上石油资源的全部所有权和专有权。

另一方面，砂拉越声称，根据该州的《1958 年石油和采矿条例》(OMO)，它拥有这些资源。它辩称，OMO 仍然具有法律效力，并且与 PDA“共存”。

砂拉越表示，该大陆架自 1954 年以来一直位于其边界内。砂拉越表示，九年后加入马来西亚时，这些边界仍然完好无损。

这场争端意义重大，因为它挑战了马来西亚国家石油公司在南海资源丰富地区（包括卢科尼亚浅滩附近）开采的权利。

 据估计，该地区蕴藏着马来西亚 60% 的石油和天然气资源，生产出马来西亚大部分的液化天然气 (LNG)，足以满足马来西亚国家石油公司 90% 的液化天然气出口。

砂拉越不再满足于只获得根据 PDA 达成的协议中规定的 5% 的石油特许权使用费，最近要求获得更大份额的石油和天然气收入。

为了支持其主张，婆罗洲州辩称，它拥有其海岸所有资源的唯一合法权利。

东姑拉沙里 (Tengku Razaleigh) 说，这不是他们的石油

前财政部长东姑拉沙里 (Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah) 坚称，与马来西亚国家石油公司相比，砂拉越对这些资源的所有权并不更高。

“这不是他们的石油。当时（1963 年马来西亚协议起草时）甚至没有讨论过这个问题，”他告诉 FMT。

他说，砂拉越应该继续履行其在之前签订的特许权协议下的义务。

“你不能来来回回，你知道。协议就是协议，”国家石油公司的第一任主席 Tengku Razaleigh 说。

那么，砂拉越有合法的主张吗？ FMT 探讨了该州提出的法律论点。

Let the Federal Court decide

 

My comments:

The battle for O&G in the continental shelf off Sarawak’s shores FMT Reporters  -12 Nov 2024, 07:30 AM

 

Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak signed MA63 (Malaysia Agreement in 1963) to form the federation of Malaysia.  When Singapore seceded in 1965, I wonder if MA63 is still valid?

 

When Sabah and Sarawak were still colonies of the British government, did they have the legal capacity to sign the international treaty on 9 July, 1963 in London? 

 

I guess that most of you must have the information of the case of the Chagos Islands in the tribunal in the International Court of Justice and the return of the said islands to Mauritius eventually. 

 

If said, it is valid; now let’s see whether Malaysia@Malaya in the Petronas’s claim of the full ownership of all petroleum resources up to 200 nautical miles off the coast of Sarawak to be theirs or not in the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA74) passed in the parliament so off-balanced as it was not in agreement to 35% the federal seats allocated to Sabah and Sarawak accordingly. 

 

Did the parliament have the power to pass the law to alter the international treaty at will single-handedly though Sarawak had the representatives in the parliament without the consent of Dun of Sarawak? 

 

Do the parliamentary members from Sarawak have the power to decide the changes in the international treaty that can affect the interests and rights of Sarawak adversely in the parliament?

 

There are three entities in the federation of Malaysia@Malaya.  Malaya in the name of Malaysia wants everything for itself like a snake wanting to swallow a big elephant as said in the Chinese idiom.

(人心不足，蛇吞象)；always wants to take 9 out of 10.  It is a neo-colonialist in every aspect.

Sarawak is a nation, not yet independent and an entity having our own sets of law to protect the interests and rights of Sarawak in agreement to MA63.

 

In Sarawak, we have the Oil and Mining Ordinance (OMO) 1958 having the force of law in our own territory, of course, extending up to 200 nautical miles of our sea border.

 

Regarding Malaysia signing of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) in 1982 on behalf of Sarawak and Sabah and formally adopting as part of Malaysian law in Territorial Sea Act 2012, again they acted against MA63 without seeking the consent of the DUNs of Sarawak and Sabah to take-over.

 

Did you know that the United States of America has not signed the Unclos so far?  In other words, Malaysia, does not need to sign it at all.

 

All in all, I strongly believe that Sarawak should go to the Federal court to claim our ownership of our territorial waters up to 200 nautical miles and be prepared to go to the International Court of Justice to fix the mess.

回应冯振豪的豪言壮语： 冯振豪：东马国会代表三分一是空谈 （东方Online）

 回应冯振豪的豪言壮语：

冯振豪：东马国会代表三分一是空谈 （东方Online）

(发布于 2024年11月07日 07时30分 • 最后更新 2天前 • 豪言壮语 • 评论: 冯振豪)

冯振豪先生的思维很博士黄进发Projek Sama，豪言壮言说沙

砂是不可以拥有35%联邦议席，否则，可能引发“毁宪乱政的政治危机”。这是多么以马来亚自我为中心和重心想法，根本没有考量沙砂以平等伙伴地位。根本，不理会这事实：没有沙巴和砂拉越，就没有马来西亚联邦。

 

马来西亚就是马来亚，所以，理所当然的马来亚A登记的人的这么认为马来西亚是他们的国家；马来西亚@马来亚。哪一面马来西亚国旗也就是马来亚国旗；一体两面相。所以，以马来亚立场谈沙砂要求35%“国会”席位，总是有那种很不是知味。

 

对沙巴H登记的人和砂拉越K登记的人来讲，马来西亚就是一个联邦组织。对马来西亚@马来亚把“联邦身份” 强硬以“国家身份”道德绑架沙砂/HK，种种行径已经离谱到不行。今天冯振豪先生和博士黄进发Projek Sama却否定【宪法规章】自以为是的倡议另类作法，完全不顾沙砂两邦国的权益和感受。

 

“如果我们使用今天的标准和规范来改变历史，我们不妨质疑整个1963年马来西亚协议。他们《马来西亚非政府组织》愿意谈论MA63是否有效？”Professor James Chin质问.

 

以砂拉越人K登记的人的立场，要求35%联邦立法议席，已经对沙砂以平等伙伴关系组成马来西亚是很大的偏差。所谓平等伙伴关系怎么在数据上有如此的偏差。按照数学原理应该是A:33+1%；H: 33%；K：33%才合理，不是吗？法和理何在？

 

再说，当时，沙砂先贤答应组成马来西亚联邦是有考虑到沙砂人口相对马来亚人口的差距的问题，因此，才要求考虑幅员及其潜能。在各方同意下才签这份协议，不是吗？

 

冯先生说沙砂一旦拥有35%联邦席位更恶化“票票不等值的问题”。嗯。。嗯，那么马来亚/A实体：最多人数的选区P102万宜有17万8790; 最少人数的选区P55霹雳州玲珑2万9752.  马来亚11州各州票值差距大，有造成任何“毁宪乱政的政治危机”吗？

 

马来亚A，沙巴H和砂拉越K三国联邦平等伙伴关系。A人口占总人数大概83%；相对HK人口只有17%差距非常大，怎么能一人一票来划分选区呢？ 这不就是致沙砂于死地吗？

 

从1976年以来，沙砂就是面对极端不公平对待。向沙砂两国税收后， 85%以上的发展拨款都在A国发展；沙砂只有区区14%多。沙砂有超级丰富的资源，然而基建却非常落后，难道跟对马来西亚@马来亚无关吗？

 

A实体11州，各州票值都不一；都无法做到票票等值，凭什么要求两邦国跟马来亚11州实践票票等值？

 

今天，马来亚的种族宗教的乱相，很多人尤其是华人惶恐伊斯党/PAS做大。持着Projek Sama相同思维的人都认为拒绝沙砂35%议席，就可以防止PAS执政中央。这想法跟那些认为沙砂拥有35%议席可以阻止PAS执政中央不都一样荒谬吗？

 

冯就凭着假设和想象伊党东渡沙砂失败后，会在A国更极端和偏激为了捕获马来票“继续采取偏锋路线”。 他相信伊党一旦在A国坐拥第一大党的优势，就有机会跟HK两国谈判而顺利执政中央。他很搞笑的假设一切都保持不变，想象就像2022年联邦投票结束后，HK力挺慕尤丁组织的政府的事会发生。

 

冯也假设和想象提高HK35%联邦代表会触动到“马来王室的权力”和影响力。这根本就是冯莫须有的想法。按照民主进程，联邦议会的决定一切才是主轴。马来王室应该很清楚他们的定位和立命。

 

说分配HK35%是项大型立法工程势“将触及联邦宪法的根本性，从技术面延伸出来的不公平，可能引发毁宪乱政的政治危机。”故意制造耸人听闻的语境。可悲也!

 

冯指责沙砂领袖对马半岛有着棘手问题时总是给出“一副事不关己的模样”；对资源分配的事，沙砂总是嫌联邦预算拨款不足。是啊！发展拨款 85%多是给马半岛，对比之下，HK获得联邦预算拨款足够吗？HK今天至少落后A将近20年，为什么？

 

HK资源超级丰富，如果联邦税收有合理归还，HK的资金是绰绰有余，需要跟联邦讨价还价吗？譬如，2023年，砂旅游收入是300 million, 联邦归还30 million 10%而已。如果合情理法，沙巴何必要向联邦对薄公堂呢？

 

冯说：“东马政党和政治人物若想获得更充分的政治代表权，向联邦政府争取更多资源分配，那么请你们先把马来西亚当成是你们的国家。” 这是多么自相矛盾，蛮不讲理的说法。

 

沙砂要求35%联邦议席是按照Cobbold Commission Report, 还有IGC Report 和 MA63协议，是合情理法的。资源沙砂超级多，不被联邦掠夺去，哪有讨价还价那种事？

 

沙砂，难听一点说，就是马来西亚@马来亚殖民地。

 

要求35%是留马派的诉求；独立派的诉求是脱离联邦独立自主一切。      

正如婆罗洲邮报(Borneo Post 10/11/24) Dunstan Chan 所言，砂人开始在他们的脑海中哼唱Andrea Bocelli’s song, ‘Con Te Partiro’ (Time to say Goodbye!)想象切断联系Malaya的绳索。

 

10/11/24

 

冯振豪：东马国会代表三分一是空谈 （东方Online）

(发布于 2024年11月07日 07时30分 • 最后更新 2天前 • 豪言壮语 • 评论: 冯振豪)

冯振豪先生的思维很博士黄进发Projek Sama，豪言壮言说沙

砂是不可以拥有35%联邦议席，否则，可能引发“毁宪乱政的政治危机”。这是多么以马来亚自我为中心和重心想法，根本没有考量沙砂以平等伙伴地位。根本，不理会这事实：没有沙巴和砂拉越，就没有马来西亚联邦。

 

马来西亚就是马来亚，所以，理所当然的马来亚A登记的人的这么认为马来西亚是他们的国家；马来西亚@马来亚。哪一面马来西亚国旗也就是马来亚国旗；一体两面相。所以，以马来亚立场谈沙砂要求35%“国会”席位，总是有那种很不是知味。

 

对沙巴H登记的人和砂拉越K登记的人来讲，马来西亚就是一个联邦组织。对马来西亚@马来亚把“联邦身份” 强硬以“国家身份”道德绑架沙砂/HK，种种行径已经离谱到不行。今天冯振豪先生和博士黄进发Projek Sama却否定【宪法规章】自以为是的倡议另类作法，完全不顾沙砂两邦国的权益和感受。

 

“如果我们使用今天的标准和规范来改变历史，我们不妨质疑整个1963年马来西亚协议。他们《马来西亚非政府组织》愿意谈论MA63是否有效？”Professor James Chin质问.

 

以砂拉越人K登记的人的立场，要求35%联邦立法议席，已经对沙砂以平等伙伴关系组成马来西亚是很大的偏差。所谓平等伙伴关系怎么在数据上有如此的偏差。按照数学原理应该是A:33+1%；H: 33%；K：33%才合理，不是吗？法和理何在？

 

再说，当时，沙砂先贤答应组成马来西亚联邦是有考虑到沙砂人口相对马来亚人口的差距的问题，因此，才要求考虑幅员及其潜能。在各方同意下才签这份协议，不是吗？

 

冯先生说沙砂一旦拥有35%联邦席位更恶化“票票不等值的问题”。嗯。。嗯，那么马来亚/A实体：最多人数的选区P102万宜有17万8790; 最少人数的选区P55霹雳州玲珑2万9752.  马来亚11州各州票值差距大，有造成任何“毁宪乱政的政治危机”吗？

 

马来亚A，沙巴H和砂拉越K三国联邦平等伙伴关系。A人口占总人数大概83%；相对HK人口只有17%差距非常大，怎么能一人一票来划分选区呢？ 这不就是致沙砂于死地吗？

 

从1976年以来，沙砂就是面对极端不公平对待。向沙砂两国税收后， 85%以上的发展拨款都在A国发展；沙砂只有区区14%多。沙砂有超级丰富的资源，然而基建却非常落后，难道跟对马来西亚@马来亚无关吗？

 

A实体11州，各州票值都不一；都无法做到票票等值，凭什么要求两邦国跟马来亚11州实践票票等值？

 

今天，马来亚的种族宗教的乱相，很多人尤其是华人惶恐伊斯党/PAS做大。持着Projek Sama相同思维的人都认为拒绝沙砂35%议席，就可以防止PAS执政中央。这想法跟那些认为沙砂拥有35%议席可以阻止PAS执政中央不都一样荒谬吗？

 

冯就凭着假设和想象伊党东渡沙砂失败后，会在A国更极端和偏激为了捕获马来票“继续采取偏锋路线”。 他相信伊党一旦在A国坐拥第一大党的优势，就有机会跟HK两国谈判而顺利执政中央。他很搞笑的假设一切都保持不变，想象就像2022年联邦投票结束后，HK力挺慕尤丁组织的政府的事会发生。

 

冯也假设和想象提高HK35%联邦代表会触动到“马来王室的权力”和影响力。这根本就是冯莫须有的想法。按照民主进程，联邦议会的决定一切才是主轴。马来王室应该很清楚他们的定位和立命。

 

说分配HK35%是项大型立法工程势“将触及联邦宪法的根本性，从技术面延伸出来的不公平，可能引发毁宪乱政的政治危机。”故意制造耸人听闻的语境。可悲也!

 

冯指责沙砂领袖对马半岛有着棘手问题时总是给出“一副事不关己的模样”；对资源分配的事，沙砂总是嫌联邦预算拨款不足。是啊！发展拨款 85%多是给马半岛，对比之下，HK获得联邦预算拨款足够吗？HK今天至少落后A将近20年，为什么？

 

HK资源超级丰富，如果联邦税收有合理归还，HK的资金是绰绰有余，需要跟联邦讨价还价吗？譬如，2023年，砂旅游收入是300 million, 联邦归还30 million 10%而已。如果合情理法，沙巴何必要向联邦对薄公堂呢？

 

冯说：“东马政党和政治人物若想获得更充分的政治代表权，向联邦政府争取更多资源分配，那么请你们先把马来西亚当成是你们的国家。” 这是多么自相矛盾，蛮不讲理的说法。

 

沙砂要求35%联邦议席是按照Cobbold Commission Report, 还有IGC Report 和 MA63协议，是合情理法的。资源沙砂超级多，不被联邦掠夺去，哪有讨价还价那种事？

 

沙砂，难听一点说，就是马来西亚@马来亚殖民地。

 

要求35%是留马派的诉求；独立派的诉求是脱离联邦独立自主一切。      

正如婆罗洲邮报(Borneo Post 10/11/24) Dunstan Chan 所言，砂人开始在他们的脑海中哼唱Andrea Bocelli’s song, ‘Con Te Partiro’ (Time to say Goodbye!)想象切断联系Malaya的绳索。

 

10/11/24