A question to Tiong King Sing: Is Bintulu ok with sharing its Oil and Gas reserve with the rest of Sarawak?

If a state can claim the oil and gas found within its territory belongs to it, not the nation, why can’t a division or a district make the same claim, and say that the oil and gas found in its territory belongs to it, not the state government? What is the difference?

Nehru Sathiamoorthy

In modern times, the standard worldwide view in regards to the ownership of such things as oil and gas, is that these natural resources belong to the nation, not to a province or a state or a district within the nation.

When anybody in the world is asked to whom the oil found in Ghawar province belongs to, everybody will say Saudi Arabia, not the provincial government of Ghawar.

In the same way, if the world is asked who owns the oil that is found in Malaysia, the answer they will give is the government of Malaysia, not the state government of Sarawak.

Sarawak is almost the same size as Semenanjung, but Semenanjung has 11 states, while Sarawak is a monolithic polity.

There is actually no good reason as to why Sarawak is a monolithic polity.

Sarawak has 12 administrative divisions. Each of these 12 administrative divisions are equal to the size of a state in Semenanjung.

The size of the Betong division, for example, which is the smallest division in Sarawak, is bigger than Perlis, the smallest state in Semenanjung. The size of the Kapit division, which is the biggest division in Sarawak, is almost equivalent to the size of Pahang, the biggest state in Semenanjung.

If the Sarawak state government were to claim that the Oil and Gas rights found in or near its territory belongs to the Sarawak government, then can the Bintulu division someday claim that the oil and gas found near or within its territory belongs to it, and not the rest of Sarawak?

If a state can claim the oil and gas found within its territory belongs to it, not the nation, why can’t a division or a district make the same claim, and say that the oil and gas found in its territory belongs to it, not the state government? What is the difference?

Bintulu is a division that is about one and half times the size of Selangor. Bintulu has an estimated 85% of Sarawak’s known natural gas reserves and half of Sarawak’s crude oil. If Bintulu were to own its own oil and gas, Bintulu might easily become the wealthiest polity in South East Asia, if not Asia or the world.

My point here is that Kuching frequently accuses Semenanjung of siphoning Sarawak’s natural resources like oil and gas, while giving just a fraction back to Sarawak, but Kuching can only say this for as long as it views Sarawak as a monolithic polity.

Sarawak however, is hardly a monolithic entity. Sarawak in reality, is composed of 34 ethnicities and various religious denominations. The Sarawakian government might believe that regardless of race, religion and creed, all Sarawakians identify as Sarawakians first, but this is only its opinion.

The government in Semenanjung also likes to claim that regardless of race, religion or creed, we are all Malaysians, but the reality on the ground tells a different story.

Considering this to be the case, then if perchance that Putrajaya were to agree that the state of Sarawak is entitled to the oil and gas found in its territory, what if the Bintulu division, encouraged by the decision, also begins to levy the same accusation that Kuching is levying against Semenanjung today, and claim that Kuching is siphoning away all of its oil and gas wealth while giving back just a fraction in return.

If Putrajaya were to entertain Kuching’s demand for its oil and gas right to be returned to it, what is it supposed to do if the administrative government of the Bintulu division comes to it tomorrow and makes the same demand against Kuching that Kuching is making against Putrajaya today?

How far does the rabbit hole go? What is the fundamental unit that has the right to own its own natural resources? The Nation? The state? The division? The district? The sub-district? A company? An individual? What?

If Kuching does not wish to share what it has with the rest of the federation, under the premise that it has its own identity and therefore it does not have an obligation to share its privileges with those that it doesn’t share an identity with, shouldn’t Bintulu be asked as to whether it wishes to share its privileges with Kuching and the rest of Sarawak, instead of just assuming too conveniently that Bintulu does not have its own identity or that Bintulu identifies intimately with the Sarawakian identity?

Why should we believe that when an Iban sees a Melanau or a Sarawakian Chinese sees a Kayan, they are seeing a fellow Sarawakian, and not a Melanau, a Kayan, a Chinese and an Iban?

Do all Sarawakians believe that all Sarawakians are equal and one? Is development and progress truly spread uniformly all across Sarawak. or are is some parts of Sarawak favoured more for development and progress in comparison with other parts? Let us not forget, there are some parts of Sarawak that are thinking of exploring such cutting edge industries like the space industry or harnessing thermal energy from the ocean, while at the same time, by the Sarawak government’s own admission, many of the villages and schools in Sarawak are in poor condition. Does this sound like a state where development and progress is spread uniformly?

The two most powerful posts in Sarawak, which is that of the governor and premier, keep going to the same ethnicity for generations, although the said ethnicity is one of the smallest ethnicities in Sarawak. Are the bigger ethnicities in Sarawak truly ok with this?

Even if Putrajaya is inclined to entertain Sarawak’s demand that it be given the right to control its oil and gas resources, I don’t think it is wise for Putrajaya to presume that Sarawak is a monolithic polity with a singular identity, as Kuching is presenting itself to be, and assume too conveniently that Kuching speaks for all of Sarawak.

Instead of trusting Kuching and assuming that all of Sarawak wants the rights to the oil and gas found in or near its territory to be given to Kuching to administer, we should ask the rest of Sarawak as to what they want.

Even if Putrajaya is inclined to give in to the Sarawak government’s demand, it must indemnify itself sufficiently, so that someday a division in Sarawak, like the Bintulu division, doesn’t accuse Putrajaya of selling out Bintulu, by giving the Sarawak state government what rightfully belongs to Bintulu.

The representative from Bintulu is Tiong King Sing. He, for example, should be asked whether the population of Bintulu wants the right to the oil and gas found in their territory to be given to Kuching or whether they wish the right to be given to their own local administrative government.

Not only Bintulu, a referendum probably needs to be taken in all of Sarawak, to check whether they wish for their oil and gas rights to be passed down to the state government or the provincial government.

While it is at it, Putrajaya should also check whether the 12 administrative divisions in Sarawak wish to remain as a division under the centralised administration of Kuching, or transform itself to the status of a self administering state. If Semananjung has 11 states, why shouldn’t Sarawak, which is almost as big as Semenanjung, not have 12 states?

If it comes to pass that the divisions in Sarawak wish to administer themselves, Surely Kuching, which is such an ardent proponent of the concept of federalism, will be able to understand and acquiesce to their wishes and desire.