By DayakDaily Team
KUCHING, Sept 14: The signing of the Vesting Deeds that accompanied the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA74) is not proof of Sarawak’s democratic consent, says Kota Sentosa assemblyman Wilfred Yap.
He said this in response to former senior Treasury accountant Nik Ahmad Azmi Nik Md Daud, who defended the PDA 1974 and the Vesting Deeds—which vested ownership of Malaysia’s petroleum resources in Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas)—as ‘the product of voluntary harmonisation at a critical juncture in the nation’s history’.
Yap explained the PDA was enacted during a time of centralised federal control and political pressure, adding that it is misleading to describe Sarawak’s position then as ‘voluntary’, since signing under duress cannot be considered free consent by a founding partner.
“The signing of Vesting Deeds by the Sarawak chief minister at that time cannot be interpreted as the full and democratic consent of Sarawak. The Assembly, as the voice of the people, was bypassed. This fundamental omission continues to raise serious constitutional and political questions about the PDA’s validity in Sarawak,” he said in a statement.
He explained that Sarawak’s entry into Malaysia in 1963 was based on the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), which recognised Sarawak, Sabah, and Malaya as equal founding partners.
Therefore, he said, Sarawak’s rights over its land and natural resources were fundamental guarantees in the Agreement, and Sarawak cannot be equated with the other states in Malaya.
He also argued that the Sarawak Legislative Assembly (DUS) never consented to the PDA, which was tabled and passed in Parliament.
“Any law that seeks to take away or diminish Sarawak’s entrenched rights under MA63 requires the consent of the Assembly. Consent from the chief minister alone cannot substitute the authority of the elected Assembly of Sarawak,” he said.
Yap further stressed that the Federal Constitution, read together with MA63 and the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) Report, guarantees Sarawak autonomy over its natural resources, and that any centralisation of petroleum ownership that undermines these guarantees contradicts both the spirit and the letter of MA63.
He also acknowledged that although billions have flowed back to Sarawak in the form of cash payments, sales tax, and dividends, the five per cent royalty structure was never fair compared to the immense wealth extracted from Sarawak’s oil and gas resources.
“The argument that the PDA was an act of ‘decolonisation’ is misleading. While foreign concessionaires were replaced, Sarawak’s resources were centralised under federal control without the consent of Sarawak’s legislature. True decolonisation would have restored ownership to Sarawak,” he said.
Yap said Sarawak has the right to renegotiate terms it considers inequitable, and these discussions must be grounded in the law, history, and commitments made under MA63.
“Any attempt to dismiss Sarawak’s concerns as rhetoric or to claim ‘gratitude’ is misplaced and ignores the constitutional foundation of our Federation.
“The federal government must respect the rule of law and honour the constitutional safeguards in MA63. Malaysia can only move forward in unity if the federal government upholds its legal obligations to Sarawak as a founding partner,” he said.
In a report from the New Straits Times, Nik Ahmad said the PDA has been ‘unfairly’ portrayed as a colonial-style takeover of East Malaysia’s resources and rejected claims that it was politically motivated.
Nik Ahmad said the PDA74 was only made possible through formal Vesting Deeds signed by all state governments, including Sarawak, and argued that it was neither imposed on the states nor intended to sideline them. — DayakDaily
