Perluas geran khas untuk atasi kebuntuan minyak dan gas Persekutuan-Sarawak

Perdana Menteri Anwar Ibrahim expressed the importance of Petronas and Petros Malaysia working together to resolve their ongoing dispute, given the significant interests at stake. Although progress has been made in principle, commercial terms, operational power, and ongoing court cases indicate the dispute has not yet been fully resolved.

Malaysia and Sarawak should not attempt to resolve every aspect of the dispute solely through Petronas and Petros Malaysia. An interim RM1.5 billion grant offers a better solution - it could be expanded into a larger, ongoing payment formula for Sarawak, remaining transparent and stable. This step may not resolve all legal, power, and distribution issues, but at least it can separate Sarawak's just claim for a larger payout from the commercial ecosystem dispute between Petronas.

During Malaysia's National Day celebration in Kuching on September 16th, Anwar announced the grant in a spirit of unity, friendship, and Malaysia. He also agreed in principle with Sarawak's suggestion for a 5% to 10% formula based on the federal government's revenue. A clear formula is better than lengthy negotiations about payment amounts.

Sarawak will know the expected amount, while Malaysia will know its share, while both parties will have clarity on when and how the rules will be reviewed. The payment can increase or decrease based on national performance. This way, Sarawak can enjoy Malaysia's fiscal success without making Petronas a vehicle for political demands.

Malaysia's fiscal control is indeed limited, and the formula staying the same would entail significant costs. However, that is the core issue. Resolving the financial relationship between the Malaysian and Sarawak governments is the responsibility of the Malaysian government, not a problem to be handed over to the intricacies of Petronas's accounting and business model.

If Malaysia believes Sarawak deserves a larger and permanent payout, Malaysia must provide the funds and be responsible for the decision, even though it is difficult from a political and fiscal perspective. The Hormuz Strait crisis shows how disruptions in a strategic sea route can choke supply, shipping, prices, contract commitments, and market confidence.

Energy security is not only about the existence of oil and gas underground. It also depends on the ability to consistently supply energy, maintain infrastructure, fulfill contracts, and cope with market uncertainties. Petronas is at the heart of this system. It creates oil and gas fields, finances infrastructure, manages joint venture production contracts, secures buyers, and delivers liquefied natural gas (LNG) commitments.

The scale of operation, financial strength, and independent model of Petronas allows Malaysia to remain a reliable energy supplier while ensuring domestic needs are protected. Sarawak's effort to secure a fairer payout and a greater role in development is understandable. Its people should benefit from resources beyond their coastal region, while Petronas also needs space to build capacity in the domestic gas market.

However, what Sarawak seeks is not just cash payouts. The RM10 billion figure has been linked to Sarawak's demands, apart from Petros's role as a gas aggregator. At this stage, the dispute is turning into a question of national energy security. The aggregator is not just a transporter. It buys gas from producers and resells it to users.

The one who controls this position also controls the price, cash flow, and margin between purchase and sale prices. Therefore, giving Petros a wider aggregator role would remove a key component of Petronas's ecosystem and business model. It may create a new revenue source for Petros, but at the same time, it risks weakening the supply chain that supports Petronas's ability to invest, meet LNG commitments, and fulfill its national role.

Malaysia should not resolve the government-to-government dispute over revenue sharing by reshaping the company responsible for that responsibility. The general picture of a feasible solution already seems apparent. Petros can play a significant role in Sarawak's gas market and help meet the state's industrial aspirations. However, Petronas must retain its national role under the Petroleum Development Act 1974, including control of upstream sector liabilities, joint venture contracts, LNG export sales, and existing export commitments.

The principle is simple: give Sarawak the space to participate without creating power imbalances that create business uncertainty about who needs to pay, which rules apply, or whether investments will be protected. The dispute between Shell MDS, which saw the company receiving payment claims from Petronas and Petros, serves as a warning about what can happen when the boundary of responsibility is unclear.

Uncertainty is not just damaging. It can delay business decisions, increase costs, and make Malaysia seem less dependable to investors. An ongoing payment formula that keeps the same essence will not erase all legal issues. It should not also prevent Petros from growing. However, this approach can remove the most politically sensitive issue - the amount Sarawak receives - from the company's negotiation table.

Instead of obtaining a fixed amount, Sarawak should receive a formula-based payout. Rather than getting a fixed amount, Sarawak should receive a formula-based payout that reflects the nation's performance.