Tabung Haji probe widens: Four charged, former minister next in line

Sarawak senator Robert Lau has rejected the comparison between the Petronas-Petros dispute and the Tabung Haji (TH) controversy, stating that the two issues are fundamentally different. Lau explained that the Petronas-Petros dispute concerns constitutional rights, legislative authority, and the historical exercise of federal power, whereas the TH controversy is a matter of governance and financial management, with serious concerns over its management and investment practices.

He emphasized that the concerns surrounding the TH and Felda agencies revolve around their governance and impact on the national economy, but do not involve the constitutional position of the country. In contrast, the Petros-Petronas dispute is about the constitutional and legal relationship between Sarawak and the federation, focusing on the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), the Federal Constitution, and the respective powers of the federal and state governments concerning petroleum resources.

Lau acknowledged that political settlements in federal systems like Canada and Australia can resolve disputes, but he clarified that a political dimension does not automatically equate to an accountability failure. He underscored that political compromise is not the same as corruption or a surrender of accountability. Instead, he argued that a political settlement consistent with the Federal Constitution and the Malaysia Agreement 1963 should be respected, as it is not synonymous with a failure of accountability.

Lau also pointed out that Section 3 of the Petroleum Development Act 1974 allows for a political solution, as it empowers the prime minister to issue binding directions to Petronas. He questioned the legal and constitutional basis for using emergency powers from the Continental Shelf Act 1966 to alter Sarawak's legal position, given that the state had its own pre-Malaysia laws governing its continental shelf.

He emphasized that the people of Sarawak are seeking an examination and honoring of the constitutional settlement upon which Malaysia was formed, rather than a favor. Any settlement, once legally determined by the courts, should not be viewed as an accountability failure if it is both constitutional and mutually acceptable.