Kota Kinabalu: Malaysia was founded as a federation in which Sabah and Sarawak entered with constitutional safeguards, not as territories to be absorbed into a centralised nation-state, said Sungai Sibuga Assemblywoman Lisa Hassan Alban.
She said the distinction must remain central to discussions on the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), petroleum rights and the constitutional position of the Borneo states.
Lisa was responding to Episode 207 of the “Keluar Sekejap” podcast, saying the discussion by Khairy Jamaluddin and Muhammad Hafiz Hassan on the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA 1974) and Borneo rights was based on what she described as a “historically and legally flawed premise”.
“Before we talk about the future of this country, we must set the historical and constitutional record straight,” she said.
Lisa rejected the application of what she described as the Malayan “nation-state” concept to the formation of Malaysia in 1963.
She argued that Sabah and Sarawak did not join individual Malayan states such as Kelantan or Johor, but entered the new federation alongside the Federation of Malaya.
“We agreed to a Federation of States, not a centralised Nation-State.
“We agreed to integration, not assimilation,” she said.
Lisa also disputed the suggestion that Sabah and Sarawak were simply “given away” by Britain because they had not achieved full independence before Malaysia was formed.
She said British sovereignty over the territories ended with Malaysia’s formation on Sept 16, 1963, and maintained that their entry into the federation formed part of a decolonisation process accompanied by constitutional safeguards.
On petroleum rights, Lisa challenged Khairy’s assertion that MA63 did not mention “petroleum”, arguing that the relevant statutory documents referred to “mineral oil”, which she said encompasses petroleum.
She pointed to Sarawak’s oil production history dating back to 1910, arguing that it was therefore wrong to suggest the Borneo territories were unaware of petroleum’s importance when Malaysia was formed.
Lisa went further by questioning the constitutionality of the PDA 1974, arguing that Parliament could not transfer ownership of resources which, in her view, did not belong to the Federal Government in the first place.
She claimed the Emergency framework following 1969 enabled federal authorities to bypass the State Legislative Assemblies in matters affecting the continental shelf.
According to Lisa, the subsequent revocation of the Emergency proclamations in 2011 should also be considered when examining the present legal position.
She also rejected the characterisation of Sarawak’s current legal dispute involving Petronas as merely an administrative or jurisdictional disagreement.
Citing Article 74(2) and the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, Lisa maintained that the states retain constitutional authority in matters involving mining permits and licences.
She said Sarawak’s legal action should therefore be viewed as an attempt to address what it considers a longstanding constitutional grievance rather than a “political impasse”.
Lisa warned that narratives which overlook the historical basis of Malaysia’s formation risk giving the public an incomplete understanding of Sabah and Sarawak’s constitutional position.
She said Sabahans and Sarawakians were increasingly aware of the historical and constitutional issues surrounding MA63 and would continue asserting what they regarded as their safeguarded rights within the federation.