SUPP man: Read MA63 with other foundational documents to fully understand Sarawak’s O&G rights

KUCHING (Jan 28): Viewing the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) alone presents an incomplete legal picture, and it must be read with other foundational documents to fully understand Sarawak’s constitutional rights over its oil and gas resources.

Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP) Stakan chairman Dato Sim Kiang Chiok said that the agreement was not a standalone document, but was based on the recommendations of the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Report 1962.

He was responding to a recent report quoting Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said as saying that nothing in MA63 explicitly mentions O&G ownership or regulation.

He pointed out that Article VIII of MA63 obliges the governments of the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo and Sarawak to take legislative, executive or other action to implement the assurances, undertakings and recommendations contained in the IGC Report.

“The IGC Report clearly ensured that existing laws in the Borneo States would continue to operate unless amended or repealed by the appropriate authority,” he said in a statement yesterday.

Sim stressed these included Sarawak’s land and mineral rights — rights which were never intended to be unilaterally surrendered upon the formation of Malaysia.

He further highlighted the Sarawak Oil Mining Ordinance (OMO) 1958, a state law that predates Malaysia’s formation, which grants Sarawak authority to regulate the exploration and mining of petroleum within its boundaries.

As the ordinance was never repealed by the Sarawak State Legislative Assembly, Sim said it remains valid under Article 162 of the Federal Constitution, which preserves existing laws that were in force before Merdeka Day or Malaysia Day.

While the Federal Government has cited the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) 1974 as the governing law for petroleum matters, Sim noted that legal experts in Sarawak have argued that the PDA cannot supersede the OMO without the state’s consent.

He said this is because the OMO concerns land, which falls under state jurisdiction according to the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

Sim also said Sarawak’s rights over its O&G resources are anchored in the Sarawak (Alteration of Boundaries) Order in Council 1954, which defined the state’s boundaries to include the continental shelf.

“When Sarawak formed Malaysia in 1963, it did so with these boundaries intact,” he said, adding that any federal law attempting to alter these boundaries or remove the state’s mineral rights without Sarawak’s consent would violate both the spirit and the letter of MA63.

He maintained that Azalina’s statement relied on a narrow and literal reading of MA63, whereas the broader legal context showed that Sarawak’s powers over its resources were preserved as part of the conditions for forming the Federation.

“Dismissing these rights by looking only at the text of MA63 ignores the foundational documents that set the terms for the formation of Malaysia,” Sim said.