Why Focus On Sarawak In Petronas Rci

---

Senator Robert Lau counters former law minister Zaid Ibrahim’s suggestion for a probe into Sarawak’s handling of resources and federal funds as part of a proposed RCI.
From Robert Lau
I welcome Zaid Ibrahim’s support for a royal commission of inquiry into how Petronas’s wealth has been used, and how to improve management, transparency, and fairness in distributing resources to the states.
However, his support comes with conditions, accompanied by a veiled attack on Sarawak’s governance through his suggestion that the commission’s scope be expanded to include how Sarawak’s power and wealth have been managed.
Why single out Sarawak?
Why not begin at the very top, where wastage and scandals abound?
This is nothing more than an attempt to distract from the real issue.
The real issue for the nation is how we move forward in transforming our economy so that we are not overly dependent on natural resources – especially those extracted from Sarawak and Sabah – to rescue the country from its dire financial position.
The nation faces a huge public debt of more than RM1.3 trillion and an annual budget deficit that adds nearly RM100 billion to this each year. The worrying part is that there is no clear indication of when the country will achieve a balanced budget again.
While I do not condone abuse of power or self-enrichment by leaders at any level, we cannot ignore the dissatisfaction and sense of injustice felt by the people of Sarawak and Sabah.
Their natural resources were taken by the federal government through underhanded means, including the misuse of emergency powers originally granted to quell racial riots in Kuala Lumpur, which were then used to issue executive orders altering the shorelines of Sarawak and Sabah to seize control of their oil and gas wealth.
The formation of Malaysia on Sept 16, 1963 was meant to fast-track the development of Sarawak and Sabah – not to turn them into a “resources grab”.
It should not mirror what happened in Malaya under British colonial rule, when tin and rubber wealth were exploited to fuel the British economy and sustain its empire.
As noted in the book British Malaya: An Economic Analysis (1955; republished locally in 1982):
“The consensus of opinion was that Britain cannot give up Malaya because of its tremendous economic importance to the empire in general and to Britain in particular.
“In 1951, rubber exports from Malaya to the US were estimated at 370,000 tonnes, valued at about US$405,000,000, while the total exports from Britain to the US were valued at less than US$400,000,000.
“Malaya is Britain’s ‘dollar arsenal’, and she will hold it as long as it is economically profitable to her. If one day Malaya can no longer serve such a purpose, probably Britain will be more willing to let it free.”
Sarawak was fortunate not to share Malaya’s fate.
Almost all of Malaya’s wealth in tin and rubber – the twin pillars of its economy – was taken to sustain Britain. The British only ruled Sarawak for 16 years (from 1946 until Sept 16, 1963), which was too short a period for them to extract the same level of wealth.
It does not serve any purpose to point fingers or distract from the key issues at hand.
The real challenge is whether our national economy can undergo a paradigm shift so that it no longer depends on natural resources from the states to sustain itself.
The states should be allowed to use their own resources for their own development. - FMT
Robert Lau is a senator.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

---