JANUARY 16 — I refer to former senior Treasury official Nik Azmi Nik Daud's defence of Petronas’ decision to seek judicial clarification on Sarawak’s oil and gas laws, saying the move is not about Petronas undermining Sarawak law or going rogue, but “asking the courts for legal clarity when there are overlapping laws and competing interpretations.”
Nik Azmi’s remark was in response to Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB) Youth’s “accusation that the national oil company was undermining Sarawak’s regulatory framework”.
PBB Youth’s accusation was a bit of a baptism of fire, if you like.
We – Melayu Cina India Iban Kadazan – should all read the Federal Constitution.
Article 128(1)(a) provides that the Federal Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have jurisdiction to determine in accordance with any rules of court regulating the exercise of such jurisdiction any question whether a law made by Parliament or by the Legislature of a State is invalid on the ground that it makes provision with respect to a matter with respect to which Parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature of the State has no power to make laws. (Emphasis added)
Meanwhile Article 75 states that if any State law is inconsistent with a federal law, the federal law shall prevail and the State law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.
States have an obligation towards the Federation. Article 81 provides that the executive authority of every State shall be so exercised so as to ensure compliance with any federal law applying to that State and so as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive authority of the Federation.
The above constitutional provisions embody what federalism is about.
Accordingly, Nik Azmi is right: Petronas is not undermining Sarawak law or going rogue.
Petronas’ move is mandated by the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
You May Also Like