COMMENT: Sarawak’s quest for greater autonomy: A defence of rights under MA63

A PLETHORA of criticisms and viewpoints have resulted from the severe criticism directed towards the call for greater autonomy in Sarawak, which has attracted the attention of Sarawakians and online media users.

Critics claim that such a move might jeopardise the federal framework that has kept Malaysia united for more than 50 years, despite supporters’ claims that expanded autonomy might benefit Sarawak significantly.

The argument put forward here portrays a complex picture in which the effects of autonomy go beyond short-term gains in the region; they may also threaten Malaysia’s coherent national character by upsetting the delicate power dynamics between the federal and state administrations.

On one hand, the call for enhanced autonomy is deeply rooted in Sarawak’s historical narrative and economic grievances, particularly regarding the control and distribution of its natural resources.

The state’s wealth, primarily derived from oil and gas reserves managed by Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas), has often been a contentious subject. Since the enactment of the Petroleum Development Act 1974, Sarawak has perceived itself as a victim of federal mistreatment, arguing that the central government has disproportionately benefitted from its resources while relegating Sarawak to a subordinate role in national development.

In recent years after the 14th and 15th General Elections, Sarawak has found itself under scrutiny and faced accusations of anti-federalism due to its assertive demands for greater autonomy, particularly concerning its oil and gas resources and the establishment of its state-owned petroleum company, Petroleum Sarawak Bhd (Petros).

Critics hastily label Sarawak’s actions as ‘a challenge to federal authority’, yet a closer examination reveals that these actions are not a repudiation of federalism, but rather an assertion of rights enshrined in the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).

Sarawak’s claims for greater autonomy are, in fact, a rightful demand for political and economic agency within the federation of Malaysia, and should not be misconstrued as anti-federalism.

At the heart of Sarawak’s demands is its assertion of rights over natural resources, particularly oil and gas. The MA63 clearly outlines the rights of Sabah and Sarawak to control their resources, which includes the management and revenue derived from their oil and gas reserves.

The formation of Petros, the state-owned oil company, can thus be viewed as a strategic move to reclaim autonomy over this critical sector of the economy. By establishing Petros, Sarawak aims not just to manage its resources, but also to ensure that the economic benefits derived from them are directed towards the development of the state and its people.

This endeavour is not an act of defiance against the federal government, but a fulfilment of its responsibilities to its citizens.

Advocates for autonomy maintain that a more significant degree of self-governance would empower Sarawak to utilise its resources to foster local development, improve social services, and enhance the overall quality of life for its residents.

In this context, the autonomy movement is not merely an assertion of rights, but a struggle for equity and recognition within the Malaysian polity.

Critics, however, express concerns that granting Sarawak and potentially other states the power to unilaterally manage their resources could lead to fragmentation in the governance of Malaysia.

They argue that such a paradigm shift would enable state-level interests to shape national policies – ultimately resulting in a patchwork of regulations and standards that could hinder effective governance.

The fear is that instead of a unified national strategy, individual states would prioritise their local agendas, creating disparities in development and law enforcement, exacerbating regional inequalities, and potentially inducing conflicts among states with diverging interests.

Moreover, the strength of a federal system lies in its ability to create cohesion amongst diverse regions. Malaysia’s unique composition includes various ethnic groups, cultures, and economic needs.

A strong federal government plays an essential role in mediating these differences and promoting a collective national identity.

If states like Sarawak were to assert more control over their resources independently, it could result in an erosion of this fabric, leading to a splintering of national priorities.

Consequently, Malaysia’s capability to function as a united entity, capable of addressing comprehensive issues like economic development, education, and infrastructure, could be severely compromised.

The federal administration has struggled hard to stabilise the shattered state that could soon result in the government’s impending collapse in the wake of the 14th General Election.

The Barisan Nasional (BN), the ruling class since independence, was overthrown. After taking power for 22 months, the Pakatan Harapan (PH) administration was swiftly overthrown by an internal coup that produced three prime ministers in as many years.

But rather than weakening it, this political downturn has strengthened Sarawak’s regional administration, which moved quickly to establish Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) in 2019 and has been a powerful force, a kingmaker to the federal government ever since.

Sarawak has stabilised national politics, but it has never been a pain in the neck.

The economic context also plays a significant role in understanding Sarawak’s actions. Historically, the state has contributed a substantial portion of revenue to the federal treasury, yet the visible benefits of this contribution to the people of Sarawak have been minimal.

As the state grapples with issues of underdevelopment and infrastructure deficits, it is entirely reasonable for the Sarawakian government to seek a greater share of the wealth generated from its resources.

The accusations of anti-federalism stem from a misunderstanding of Sarawak’s goals, which are anchored in a desire for fairer resource allocation and better governance, not a rejection of the principles that underpin the federation.

Furthermore, the narrative that portrays Sarawak’s demands as anti-federalism ignores the broader context of Malaysian federalism, which is meant to allow for regional autonomy and diversity.

The federal structure is designed to accommodate the unique needs of its constituent states, particularly those with distinct cultural and economic identities.

Sarawak has a rich history and a diverse population, and its quest for autonomy should be seen as a legitimate attempt to tailor governance to the specific needs of its people, rather than a blanket opposition to federal governance.

When critics argue against Sarawak’s formation of Petros, they often overlook the legal and constitutional underpinnings of these actions.

The Malaysia Agreement established a framework meant to recognise the specific contexts of states like Sarawak and Sabah.

Therefore, it is essential that any claims to state autonomy and resource management are not only acknowledged, but also respected within the legal architecture of Malaysia.

The grievances surrounding a perceived lack of respect for this agreement point more towards the need for federal compliance and recognition of Sarawak’s rights than a threat to national unity.

Instead of condemning Sarawak’s actions as anti-federal, it would be more appropriate for the undesirable parties within or outside the federal entities to look way back why Sarawak was ignored and deprived of strategic developments since 1963, and urged the federal government to engage in dialogue and cooperation, recognising the state’s aspirations as integral to the federation’s dynamic and diverse framework.

Thus, Sarawak’s quest for autonomy is not a challenge to the federation, but a vital step towards realising its true potential within a united Malaysia.

Sarawak has the right to push back against these critiques, labelling them as narratives that overshadow the legitimate concerns of the state’s historical grievances and current aspirations.

They assert that the call for autonomy is not an endeavour to undermine the federation but rather a pursuit of equitable treatment and recognition of the unique needs of Sarawak.

This perspective argues that autonomy can coexist with a federal framework, where cooperative governance ensures that both state and national interests are harmonised rather than at odds with each other.

Sarawak emphasises the need for a fair distribution of wealth and a more inclusive dialogue regarding its role within the national context.

In conclusion, to enhance understanding, the federal government must engage meaningfully with Sarawak’s aspirations.

This engagement could help realign mistrust and foster a more cooperative relationship.

By addressing Sarawak’s historical grievances while ensuring the integrity of federalism, a balanced solution may be achieved – one that satisfies the aspirations of Sarawakians while preserving the national unity that is crucial for Malaysia’s future.

The challenge lies in finding a harmonious balance that elevates Sarawak’s status and rights without jeopardising the very federal structure that has provided stability and unity to Malaysia for over half a century.

The future of Malaysia as a cohesive nation may depend on navigating this complex terrain with sensitivity, foresight, and an inclusive spirit.

* The opinions expressed in this article are the writer’s own and do not reflect the view of the newspaper. A social and political activist, Zaabar Ballia endeavours to put things in the correct and proper perspective. He can be contacted via @[email protected].