By DANIEL JOHN JAMBUN, President , Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)
KOTA KINABALU — Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) declares that recent attempts by the Federal Government, through statements attributed to Minister Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, to justify federal control of oil and gas by invoking the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) amount to a constitutional misrepresentation of the highest order.
BoPiMaFo states firmly:
The Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA 1974) is the real instrument of dispossession — and it must now be subjected to judicial invalidation or, at minimum, strict constitutional reinterpretation in light of MA63 and the Federal Constitution.
MA63 did not confer ownership of Sabah and Sarawak’s petroleum resources on the Federation. It entrenched a federal structure in which land and natural resources remained within state jurisdiction, subject only to limited federal powers expressly provided for.
The PDA 1974 radically and unilaterally altered that balance.
Enacted without the free consent of Sabah and Sarawak, the PDA 1974 vested control and ownership of petroleum resources in Petronas — a federal entity — thereby achieving through ordinary legislation what could never lawfully be done under MA63 or the Constitution.
This is not constitutional evolution.
This is constitutional circumvention.
BoPiMaFo therefore calls on the courts to confront the issue squarely:
Either the PDA 1974 is unconstitutional as applied to Sabah and Sarawak, for violating MA63 and the federal bargain; or
It must be reinterpreted narrowly, so that it cannot extinguish or override state ownership, regulatory authority, and revenue rights over petroleum resources.
There is no third option consistent with constitutional supremacy.
Anticipating Putrajaya’s Legal Rebuttals
The Federal Government will predictably argue that:
1. “PDA 1974 is valid federal law passed by Parliament.”
→ Validity of form does not cure unconstitutionality of substance. Parliament cannot legislate in a manner that destroys the basic federal structure promised under MA63, nor can it retrospectively rewrite the conditions of Sabah and Sarawak’s entry into Malaysia.
2. “States agreed to the arrangement through subsequent conduct.”
→ Acquiescence under economic and political imbalance is not consent. Constitutional rights cannot be lost through silence, coercion, or dependency — especially where revenue deprivation itself created the imbalance.
3. “Petronas owns the petroleum by statutory vesting.”
→ Statutory vesting cannot override constitutional allocation of powers. If vesting contradicts MA63 and the Constitution, then the vesting provision — not MA63 — must fall.
4. “Oil and gas are federal matters for national interest.”
→ National interest is not a constitutional wildcard. MA63 deliberately preserved Sabah and Sarawak’s control over natural resources precisely to prevent centralised exploitation.
These arguments are not new.
They persist only because they have never been squarely tested against MA63 in a principled constitutional reckoning.
Link to Ongoing MA63 Revenue Litigation
The Federal Government’s resistance to Sabah’s 40% net revenue entitlement under Articles 112C and 112D exposes the same pattern of bad faith.
Putrajaya cannot:
deny or delay constitutional revenue payments,
monopolise the very resources that generate that revenue, and
then claim fidelity to MA63.
The ongoing litigation is not merely about money.
It is about whether Sabah and Sarawak are equal partners or perpetual dependants.
BoPiMaFo asserts that the PDA 1974 sits at the heart of this dispute. Until its constitutional validity is confronted, MA63 “restoration” will remain a slogan rather than a reality.
MA63 does not legitimise the PDA 1974.
MA63 indicts it.
BoPiMaFo calls on the judiciary to act with constitutional courage and clarity:
to invalidate the PDA 1974 insofar as it applies to Sabah and Sarawak, or
to reinterpret it in a manner consistent with MA63, federalism, and constitutional supremacy.
Anything less would amount to judicial endorsement of a decades-long constitutional fraud.
