MEDIA STATEMENT: 4 MARCH 2026 - Capacity is not
built through dependency but through control
The recent
remarks by Mustapha Sakmud urging Sabah to take a “gentle”
approach toward Petroliam Nasional Berhad raise a fundamental
question:
'Is the Ministry
of Sabah and Sarawak Affairs meant to defend Sabah’s constitutional
rights — or to discourage Sabah from asserting them?'
With respect,
this position is deeply disappointing and fundamentally misplaced.
As Minister in
charge of Sabah and Sarawak Affairs, Mustapha’s primary
responsibility is not to shield Petronas from scrutiny, nor to
caution Sabah against asserting its constitutional rights. His
mandate exists precisely to ensure that long-standing issues
affecting Sabah and Sarawak - including the implementation of
Malaysia Agreement 1963, oil and gas ownership, the Territorial Sea
Act 2012 and fiscal equity — are robustly defended at the federal
level.
Sabah’s rights
over its natural resources do not arise from federal discretion. They
arise from the constitutional framework established under the
Malaysia Agreement 1963.
Instead of
reinforcing Sabah’s bargaining position, his remarks appear to
dilute it.
1. The Ministry’s Purpose Is to Defend
Regional Rights
The Ministry of
Sabah and Sarawak Affairs was created to strengthen the
implementation of MA63, address constitutional imbalances, resolve
disputes involving federal laws such as the Petroleum Development Act
1974 and ensure equitable development and revenue distribution in
both regions.
It was never
intended to act as a public relations shield for Petronas.
If the Minister
does not use his federal platform to argue Sabah's and Sarawak's case
firmly within Cabinet, the Attorney-General’s Chambers and relevant
ministries, then who will?
2. Protecting Petronas Should Not Mean
Weakening Sabah
No one disputes
Petronas’ global standing or economic contribution. However,
Petronas exists because of the petroleum resources of Sabah, Sarawak,
Kelantan and Terengganu.
Sabah’s oil
and gas reserves are not federal charity — they are constitutional
assets. A stronger Sabah position does not equal “harming”
Petronas; it strengthens Malaysia by correcting imbalance.
Sarawak’s
legal challenge is not an attack — it is a constitutional
clarification. Seeking judicial interpretation of federal-state
powers is mature federalism, not aggression.
The question
that Mustapha should answer now is simple: Why should Sabah
pre-emptively limit itself?
3. The “Capacity” Argument Is Weak
The claim that
Sabah lacks capacity compared to Sarawak raises serious concerns.
“Capacity is
not built through dependency. It is built through control.”
Without
asserting upstream rights and supply chain participation, Sabah will
never close the capability gap. Joint ventures without equal leverage
risk long-term structural dependency.
Sarawak built
its ecosystem precisely because it asserted control. If Sabah
continues deferring, we risk permanent junior-partner status in our
own waters.
4. The True Meaning of the Borneo Bloc
The idea of the
Borneo Bloc — heavily promoted by leaders within Gabungan Rakyat
Sabah — was never merely about parliamentary numbers.
It was about
Sabah and Sarawak speaking with a common voice on MA63, resource
rights and federal balance. It was about a united front in Parliament
to enable a common negotiation strategy, shared pursuit of oil and
gas rights, and stronger bargaining power in Cabinet formation.
When Sabah
appears to distance itself from Sarawak’s constitutional position
on oil and gas, it risks weakening the very regional solidarity that
the Borneo Bloc was meant to represent.
Regional
strength comes from alignment — not hesitation.
5. Oil & Gas Is Central to MA63 Justice
Let us be clear:
the Petroleum Development Act 1974, passed after the formation of
Malaysia, fundamentally altered control over natural resources.
Sabah and
Sarawak’s consent and interpretation of this framework remain
contested.
If the Ministry
does not firmly advocate for re-examination of such foundational
matters, it risks becoming ceremonial rather than substantive.
6. Investor Confidence Comes From Legal
Clarity, Not Submission
It has been
suggested that prolonged disputes could erode investor confidence.
However, investors prefer clarity over ambiguity.
Seeking judicial
clarification provides certainty. Ambiguity creates risk.
Responsible
governance requires defining constitutional boundaries clearly —
not avoiding the question.
7. Future Generations Deserve Structural Reform
Sabah continues
to face infrastructure deficits, revenue limitations, development
imbalance compared to Peninsular Malaysia and outmigration of talent.
The oil and gas revenue structure directly impacts these realities.
A “gentle”
approach may be politically convenient — but structural inequality
requires structural reform.
8. A Call for Leadership, Not Caution
As a Sabahan
holding a federal portfolio specifically designed to bridge regional
grievances, Mustapha Sakmud should advocate firmly within Cabinet for
Sabah’s oil and gas rights, support constitutional clarification of
federal-state petroleum powers, align Sabah’s strategy with broader
East Malaysian interests and strengthen — not soften — Sabah’s
negotiating position.
Protecting
Petronas and protecting Sabah are not mutually exclusive. But if
forced to prioritise, a Minister of Sabah and Sarawak Affairs must
prioritise Sabah and Sarawak.
Conclusion
The Borneo Bloc
must stand for something greater than electoral arithmetic. It must
stand for MA63 justice, oil and gas sovereignty, fiscal equity and
constitutional balance within the Federation.
Sabah should not
fear asserting its rights simply because Sarawak has chosen to do so
more assertively.
History does not
reward regions that negotiate from hesitation. It rewards those who
negotiate from conviction.
Christopher
Masudal
Strategic
Communication Director
Parti Warisan
