MEDIA STATEMENT : 26 February 2026 - Statement on Constitutional Clarity, PDA74 and State Rights.
Warisan
takes note of the Sarawak Government’s decision to seek a
determination from the Federal Court on the constitutional validity
and continued applicability of the Petroleum Development Act 1974
(PDA74), the Continental Shelf Act 1966 and the Petroleum Mining Act
1966 in relation to Sarawak.
This
action must be understood in its proper constitutional context.
The
Petroleum Development Act 1974 fundamentally centralised control of
petroleum resources under federal authority. For Sabah and Sarawak,
whose territorial boundaries and resource rights were defined prior
to Malaysia Day and protected under the constitutional framework
arising from the Malaysia Agreement 1963, the question has always
been whether the implementation of PDA74 fully respected those
original safeguards.
This
is not merely a technical legal debate about oil and gas. It
concerns:
i).
the extent of state legislative authority
under the Ninth Schedule;
ii).
the recognition of territorial boundaries
established at the formation of Malaysia;
and
iii).
the constitutional balance between federal
power and state sovereignty over natural resources.
Warisan
believes that national unity is strengthened — not weakened —
when these constitutional questions are addressed transparently.
For
years, the Federal Government has affirmed its commitment to Malaysia
Agreement 1963 and to recognising Sabah and Sarawak as equal
partners in the Federation. Equal partnership, however, cannot
coexist with prolonged ambiguity over control, regulation and revenue
derived from resources located within state boundaries.
If
PDA74 and related federal laws are fully consistent with Malaysia
Agreement 1963 and the Federal Constitution, then judicial
clarification will affirm that position. If adjustments are required
to restore constitutional balance, then that too must be respected.
What
cannot continue is a situation where:
i).
State rights appear administratively constrained beyond what
was originally agreed;
ii).
Constitutional safeguards are interpreted narrowly in
practice; and
iii).
Equal partnership is acknowledged rhetorically but limited in
substance.
Let
us be clear: Sabah and Sarawak are not challenging the Federation.
They are asking that the Federation operate as it was designed — as
a constitutional partnership with clearly defined powers.
This
matter should not have escalated to constitutional litigation if
there had been consistent respect for the spirit and letter of
Malaysia Agreement 1963 from the outset.
However, when legitimate questions remain unresolved after decades of
negotiation, recourse to the Federal Court is both lawful and
responsible.
Warisan
stands for a strong Federation grounded in
constitutional fidelity, full respect for
state rights as provided under the Federal Constitution
and a fair and transparent framework governing petroleum and
other natural resources.
Unity
built on imbalance cannot endure but on mutual
constitutional respect.
We
support peaceful, lawful determination of these matters. But we also
state firmly: if Sabah and Sarawak’s constitutional rights continue
to be deprived or diminished in practice, it will inevitably weaken
confidence in the federal compact.
Malaysia’s
future stability depends on honouring its founding agreement — not
selectively, but completely.
–
Ends –
YB
CHIN TEK MIN
ADUN
KAPAYAN
LEGAL
ADVISOR TO PARTI WARISAN
