PBK’s 2021 MA63 suit could have been leverage to reclaim rights, even challenge M’sia ties

Voon Lee Shan

By DayakDaily Team

KUCHING, Feb 24: If the Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) had supported the Parti Bumi Kenyalang (PBK) Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) suit in 2021, the court might have allowed Sarawak to challenge federal control over its resources, potentially giving the State leverage to reclaim rights and even consider redefining its relationship with Malaysia, PBK president Voon Lee Shan said.

Voon noted that the issue has resurfaced following a petition filed in the Federal Court on Monday (Feb 23), which challenges the applicability of the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA74), the Continental Shelf Act 1966 (CSA66), and the Petroleum Mining Act 1966 (PMA66), after Petroliam Nasional Berhad (PETRONAS) questioned the validity of Sarawak’s petroleum laws.

Voon pointed out that the constitutional question is not new, as PBK had raised a similar challenge in 2021 through 12 plaintiffs led by Dorus Katan.

“That suit reflected longstanding concerns among Sarawakians regarding the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and the federal government’s control over the State’s natural resources.

“However, the court dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring the matter and only the Sarawak government could do so. At the time, the GPS government had supported the federal government in opposing the PBK suit, which resulted in PBK being ordered to pay substantial legal costs,” he said in a statement today.

Voon argued that if the GPS government had supported the PBK suit, the court might have allowed Sarawak to examine its relationship with Malaya within Malaysia, potentially even considering separation.

“Such a case could have been used as leverage to reclaim significant rights and resources for Sarawak,” he stressed.

He emphasised that the Federal Court’s current proceedings are not about rejecting federal authority but about clarifying the constitutional boundaries between the Federation and Sarawak.

While the Federal Constitution establishes federal law as supreme, this supremacy applies only within the limits of Parliament’s constitutional powers. If federal laws exceed these powers, they may be declared invalid.

“The critical question before the court is whether Parliament acted within its constitutional scope when enacting PDA74, CSA66, and PMA66, especially given the special safeguards and arrangements for Sarawak embedded in the Constitution at the time of Malaysia’s formation in 1963,” Voon said.

The outcome of the Federal Court’s decision will have far-reaching implications for federal-state relations, resource governance, and constitutional protections for both Sabah and Sarawak.

Voon urged citizens and legal practitioners alike to approach the matter with constitutional literacy, legal clarity, and respect for the rule of law, while noting that the case will likely be complex given the central role of PDA74 in Malaysia’s economy.

Deputy Minister in the Sarawak Premier’s Department (Law, Malaysia Agreement 1963 and State-Federal Relations) Datuk Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali said the petition seeks judicial affirmation that these federal laws infringe on Sarawak’s sovereign rights over petroleum resources within the State’s boundaries.

She emphasised that under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) and associated constitutional instruments, these rights were vested in Sarawak from Malaysia Day onward.

Sharifah Hasidah also cited Item 2(c) of the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, which empowers the Dewan Undangan Negeri to regulate petroleum rights through mining leases, certificates, and prospecting licenses. — DayakDaily