Foundation questions minister’s ‘partnership’ remarks on Sabah’s petroleum rights

KOTA KINABALU (March 4): Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) has expressed serious concern over recent remarks by Sabah and Sarawak Affairs Minister Mustapha Sakmud suggesting that Sabah’s “subtle and gentle” partnership with Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) represents the most appropriate approach to managing the state’s petroleum resources.

Its president Daniel John Jambun in a statement said such statements risk sending the wrong message at a time when fundamental constitutional questions concerning petroleum governance in Malaysia are being examined before the courts.

“Petroleum rights are not a courtesy arrangement,” he said.

He noted that the governance of petroleum resources in Malaysia is rooted in legal and constitutional frameworks, including the Petroleum Development Act 1974, whose constitutional implications are currently under judicial scrutiny in proceedings initiated by the Sarawak government.

“These proceedings seek judicial clarification on whether federal petroleum legislation properly applies to the Borneo states within the constitutional structure established when Malaysia was formed,” he said.

According to Daniel, the issue goes beyond commercial cooperation with Petronas and concerns the underlying constitutional position of Sabah and Sarawak over their natural resources.

“Reducing this matter to a ‘partnership model’ risks trivialising a question that carries long-term implications for Sabah’s economic future,” he said.

BoPiMaFo also voiced concern over suggestions that Sabah’s current approach reflects the state’s “stage of capacity-building”.

“Constitutional rights do not arise from the level of industrial capacity possessed by a state government. They arise from law,” Daniel said.

“A state does not lose its constitutional position simply because it has not yet developed the same institutional structures as another. Capacity can be built over time. But constitutional rights, once diluted through policy choices or political acquiescence, may be far more difficult to restore,” he added.

He said the Sarawak government’s decision to seek judicial clarification on the constitutional validity and applicability of several federal petroleum laws should be respected.

“Seeking judicial interpretation of the law is not a threat to Malaysia’s oil and gas industry. On the contrary, legal certainty strengthens both governance and investor confidence,” he said.

Daniel maintained that while Malaysia’s oil and gas sector is strategically important and Petronas has contributed significantly to national development, invoking the need to protect the national oil company should not become a rhetorical device to discourage legitimate constitutional inquiry.

“A mature federation must be capable of protecting national institutions while also respecting the constitutional rights of its constituent states. These two objectives are not mutually exclusive,” he said.

Given the gravity of the issue, BoPiMaFo believes Sabahans are entitled to clear answers.
Daniel questioned whether the position articulated by Mustapha reflects the official policy of the Sabah State Government led by Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS), or the stance of Pakatan Harapan (PH) leaders serving in the Federal Cabinet.

“This distinction matters. The governance of Sabah’s petroleum resources is not a routine administrative matter. It concerns one of the most consequential economic questions affecting the future of the state,” he said.

He added that petroleum resources located off Sabah’s shores represent one of the most significant economic assets available to the state, and decisions affecting their governance should be guided by constitutional clarity, informed public debate and long-term strategic thinking.

“Commercial cooperation may form part of that framework. But cooperation must follow from a clear understanding of Sabah’s constitutional position — not replace it.

“The people of Sabah have the right to know where their leaders stand on matters affecting the state’s economic sovereignty,” Daniel said.