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.