Sarawak rights must be settled legally

KUCHING: Sarawak-born practising lawyer Wejok Tomik has hit back at former Law Minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, saying Sarawak’s pursuit of its constitutional and Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) rights should be addressed through law rather than political arguments.

The Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu Sarawak (PBB) supreme council member Wejok Tomik said he supported Senator Datuk Ahmad Ibrahim’s position that any determination of Sarawak’s oil and gas rights must take into account the Federal Constitution, the MA63 framework and relevant federal and Sarawak laws.

He said Zaid’s insistence that Sarawak must first recognise the rights of Petroliam Nasional Berhad (PETRONAS) under the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA 1974) as “non-negotiable” was legally unsatisfactory, as it effectively assumed the conclusion before properly addressing the dispute.

“As a former Minister responsible for law and an experienced lawyer, Datuk Zaid should appreciate the distinction between asserting a statutory right and establishing its constitutional scope.

“Declaring a position ‘non-negotiable’ is not a substitute for legal analysis,” he said.

Wejok stressed that Article 4(1) of the Federal Constitution establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the Federation, meaning the PDA 1974, like other legislation, remains subject to constitutional supremacy.

He also rejected the suggestion that PETRONAS’ commercial importance could give constitutional immunity to legislation underpinning its operations.

“The relevant questions concern legislative competence, the scope and application of the respective laws, and the constitutional allocation of powers.

“These questions cannot be resolved merely by invoking PETRONAS’ revenue, business interests or national standing,” he said.

Wejok further argued that potential financial consequences cited by Zaid did not, by themselves, establish that Sarawak’s position was unlawful.

“Even if the financial consequences alleged by Datuk Zaid are accepted for argument’s sake, they do not establish that Sarawak’s position is unlawful.

“A projected loss is a commercial contention, not a constitutional argument,” he said.

He added that challenging the scope or application of federal legislation through lawful processes should not automatically be portrayed as an attack on Malaysia or an attempt to dismantle PETRONAS.

According to Wejok, constitutional scrutiny was an integral part of the rule of law and should not be characterised as a threat to the country.

He also accused Zaid of presenting the issue selectively for political purposes, particularly in his criticism of the Unity Government under Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

“I do not regard Datuk Zaid’s approach as a product of ignorance. In my view, it is a selective presentation of the issues that serves his political positioning and his criticism of the Unity Government.

“Sarawak has, unfortunately, become a convenient punching bag in that exercise,” he said.

Wejok said Zaid was entitled to criticise the Prime Minister and his administration but should not portray Sarawak’s pursuit of its rights as a national threat.

He stressed that Sarawak was seeking the full implementation of its rights under the Federal Constitution and MA63.

“The precise extent of those rights must be addressed through proper legal interpretation and, where necessary, judicial determination,” he said.

Wejok called on the Federal Government, Sarawak, PETRONAS and Petroleum Sarawak Berhad (PETROS) to resolve their differences through lawful processes and constructive negotiations.

He challenged Zaid to identify the specific Sarawak demand he considered unlawful, cite the constitutional provision allegedly contravened and explain the legal basis for his conclusion.

“Political mileage should have no place in determining constitutional rights,” he said.