AUGUST 14 — The big news for Sarawakians earlier this week was the prime minister saying more autonomy is coming for the state. But it may not be what you think.

According to the prime minister, the federal and state governments are looking into streamlining administration and how to avoid duplication of responsibility.

“I agree with this idea as we notice there is duplication of many responsibilities leading to slow delivery to the people. We are currently identifying what type of empowerment that we can leave it to the state as they have a better view of things on the ground,” the prime minister was quoted as saying.

Already there is some disconnect with the autonomy that chief minister Tan Sri Adenan Satem had been talking about. On July 22, for example, he boldly stated that Sarawak did not partake in the formation of Malaysia only to have Britain’s colonial responsibilities over it handed over to the Federation of Malaya.

Advertisement

In May, he said constitutional provisions accord to Sarawak “a greater degree of financial, legislative and administrative autonomy not enjoyed by the other states in the Peninsula”, in a speech to the State Assembly.

It seemed the chief minister called for a different sort of autonomy — not only more independence on state administrative matters but also on financial and legislative fronts. 

A telling shade to his remarks is his often-repeated point that Sarawak and Sabah are equal partners in the Malaysia federation on par with the Federation of Malaya as an entity.

Advertisement

In comparison the prime minister’s promise on August 10 seemed limited to administrative aspects, especially in government roles vis-a-vis “delivery to the people.”

So have the goal posts shifted? Perhaps. But they were not clearly defined in the first place.

It comes down to whether the chief minister, in multiple instances earlier this year, was calling for full autonomy. Full autonomy, essentially, means Sarawak governs itself fully. This leaves only defence, foreign affairs and security aspects to the federal government. 

One important aspect of that is natural resources — will Putrajaya let Sarawak completely manage its own natural resources, especially in oil and gas reserves, its extraction and commercial exploitation?

That’s a difficult question because the Petroleum Development Act 1974 grants Petroliam Nasional (or Petronas) exclusive right to all oil and gas resources in Malaysia.

If Sarawak’s autonomy means complete control over its natural resources, the arrangement in respect of Petronas and the Act may need changing. That may mean the oil and gas royalty dynamics would change as a result. 

State Democratic Action Party (DAP), for instance, wants 20 per cent in terms of oil and gas royalty and 50 per cent of all tax revenue generated to accrue to the state. That’s a huge concession for Putrajaya and Petronas to make.

There are other matters to clarify too. In a previous declaration state DAP wanted autonomous powers to be granted to Sarawak in respect of education system, healthcare and police matters. Is the chief minister on the same page as DAP in this interpretation of autonomy?

In any case all these come back to finances — the question is whether Sarawak will have control over its own finances. If the control over money remains in Putrajaya then there is no real meaning to autonomy in this sense because you need funds to get things going.

So what does autonomy for Sarawak really mean? The chief minister should explain clearly and immediately the precise points of autonomy he is demanding from the federal government.

Only then can we be sure the prime minister does not misunderstand what the word means to Sarawak, because his track record with promises so far is far from inspiring.

Otherwise we may get something else entirely — or nothing at all.

*This is the personal opinion of the columnist.