Azalina wrong to equate MA63 with Petroleum Development Act, says senator

SIBU (Jan 29): Senator Robert Lau has expressed disagreement with Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said over her remarks on the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), saying her statement contained an erroneous assertion.

Responding to the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department’s (Law and Institutional Reform) answer to a Sarawak MP on Jan 26, Lau said the minister had attempted to equate MA63 with the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) 1974.

“Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said made an erroneous assertion by attempting to equate an international agreement – the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), which gave birth to the Federation of Malaysia and its Federal Constitution – with a piece of federal legislation enacted eleven years later,” he said in a statement.

Lau stressed that the PDA 1974 is subordinate to both the Federal Constitution and MA63.

He explained that the issue raised was not whether MA63 expressly provided for ownership of natural resources or minerals, but rather that such matters are governed by the constitutions and laws applicable to the land on which those resources are located.

“The central issue raised concerns land, from which oil and gas resources are extracted,” he said.

According to Lau, the question posed to the Minister related specifically to land jurisdiction – namely, the boundaries of Sarawak at the time of Malaysia’s formation as defined under the Queen’s Order in Council 1954, which established the boundaries of the Colony of Sarawak, and the validity of the Territorial Seas Act 2012, which he said represents an attempt by the federal government to encroach upon state land.

“It was not a question of whether MA63 expressly provided for ownership of natural resources or minerals.

“Such matters are governed by the constitutions and laws applicable to the land on which those resources are located,” Lau explained.

Lau pointed out that the Federal Constitution expressly provides that land and mining leases, including petroleum found on land, fall within the jurisdiction and control of the State Legislature, not Parliament.

“Land is clearly placed under the State List.

“In addition, Articles 47 and 48 of the Sarawak Constitution, annexed to MA63, provide that all land — including minerals on or under the land — previously vested in the British Crown is vested in the State of Sarawak and not in the Federation.”

He added that any powers conferred upon Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) under the PDA 1974 – which itself is subject to the direction and control of the Prime Minister under section 3(2) – remain subject to the laws of the territory in which the company operates.

“In this instance, Petronas operates on land belonging to Sarawak, and it is therefore subject to the laws of Sarawak,” he said.

Lau further stressed that federal legislation enacted by Parliament cannot override state laws in matters within state jurisdiction.

“Given that Petronas has now brought the matter before the Federal Court by instituting proceedings against both the federal government and the Sarawak government, it is incumbent upon the responsible Minister to exercise care and precision when making statements in Parliament,” he added.