Who is lying – father (2nd PM Tun Razak) or son (6th PM Najib Razak)?

I asked in Parliament today – “Who is lying – father (second Prime Minister Tun Razak) or son (sixth Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak”?

This was during the committee stage debate on the Prime Minister’s Department on the 2010 budget in Parliament.

On 3rd November, while replying during question time, Najib told Parliament that from a legal aspect, states such as Kelantan and Trengganu are not entitled to oil royalties for petroleum produced “off-shore” – as they are only entitled to oil royalties if the petroleum is drilled from its water.

Najib said:

“The offshore oil operations in their waters are defined as an area not more than three nautical miles, which is measured starting from the low watermark or the shoreline of the state.

“Currently, there is no oil production in the waters of Kelantan or Terengganu. Because of that, from the legal standpoint, Kelantan does not have a right to demand oil royalties, the same as Terengganu”.

This was in clear contradiction to the answer given by Najib’s father, Tun Razak when he replied to my question as the second Prime Minister in Parliament on the same issue 34 years ago in 1975.

This is the Q & A from Parliament Hansard of November 12, 1975:

Tuan Lim Kit Siang minta Perdana Menteri menyatakan samada semua negeri di Semenanjung Malaysia, Sarawak dan Sabah telah menandatangani perjanjian dengan Petronas untuk mencarigali minyak di sepanjang pantai dan samada perjanjian tersebut mengandungi apa-apa syarat dan kepentingan bersama. Nyatakan juga keuntungan bersama yang akan diterima oleh tiap-tiap negeri.

Perdana Menteri (Tun Razak): Tuan Yang di-Pertua, semua negeri di Malaysia, melainkan Sabah dan Selangor, telah menandatangani perjanjian dengan Petronas sebagaimana yang dikehendaki oleh Akta Kemajuan Petrolium, 1974. Saya diberitahu Kerajaan Negeri Selangor pun telah bersetuju menandatangani perjanjian ini. Mengikut Perjanjian itu, tiap-tiap negeri akan menerima 5% daripada nilai petrolium yang dijumpai dan diperolehi di negeri masing-masing samada yang diperolehi dalam kawasan perairan atau di luar perairan negeri tersebut, yang dijual oleh Petronas ataupun ejensi-ejensi ataupun konraktor-kontraktornya.

I called on the son and the sixth Prime Minister to keep to the commitment by the father and the second Prime Minister that Kelantan and Trengganu are entititled to 5% oil royalty for petroleum “whether onshore or offshore” as stipulated in the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (one of whose architects is Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah who had rightly spoken up on the legal rights of Kelantan and Terengganu to 5% oil royalty for petroleum produced offshore and not as mere “wang ehsan”).

Otherwise, Najib’s 1Malaysia would be sheer mockery if the legal rights and status of states to oil royalty is politicized to depend on whether Umno/Barisan Nasional controls the state government, as happened to Terengganu and Kelantan.

  1. #1 by monsterball on Monday, 16 November 2009 - 5:59 pm

    Like father like son.
    Both are political liars and opportunists.. .
    But father governed at the time..Malaysians support helping poor Malays… he did so …bringing agriculture up..helping Malays farmers only.
    Father..the architect to the downfall of Tunku..and May 13th 1969 incident.
    Son is in modern days…trying to be a Dictator..to fool all Malaysians.
    He openly supports corruptions…supporting Mahathir’s..”Money is power. Money can buy a country….like Malaysia…so cheap”
    All took the cue..and call him a hero.

  2. #2 by tenaciousB on Monday, 16 November 2009 - 6:01 pm

    The oil money has always been UMNO’s little piggy bank. They are gettin defensive because wherelese are they going to recover all the costs from the recent defection costs, bribery, keeping potential witnesses that may topple the PM out of the country and funding him to remain there, employing hitmen to finish off competition and retaining power at all cost.

  3. #3 by tenaciousB on Monday, 16 November 2009 - 6:02 pm

    Father was punished for his sins, now son’s turn.

  4. #4 by madmix on Monday, 16 November 2009 - 6:29 pm

    When Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore joined MALAYA to form Malaysia, it was agreed to give the 5% royalty to Sarawak. Oil was not discovered in the peninsular then. So the oil royalty for oil produced in the peninsular should go to MALAYA and not individual states. How you split the loot can be worked out.

  5. #5 by -ec- on Monday, 16 November 2009 - 6:40 pm

    yb, 1975 is 34 years ago, not 24.

    [Thanks, you are right.]

  6. #6 by -ec- on Monday, 16 November 2009 - 6:44 pm

    in malaysia, unmo=law. pm=law. the overall institutions are corrupted.

  7. #7 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Monday, 16 November 2009 - 7:50 pm

    Shakespeare wud have said: Najib is fantastical, full of strange dishes – mumbo-jumbo, rojak and rubbish rolled into one package!

  8. #8 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Monday, 16 November 2009 - 7:54 pm

    Maybe najib wants to keep all the kelantan oil royalty to buy more Scorpene submarines.

    After Altantuya, who wud like to be the next interpreter?
    Who, the Razak Baginda?
    Who, the next C4 guest?

  9. #9 by undertaker888 on Monday, 16 November 2009 - 7:58 pm

    spare your breathe asking the government to uphold legal rights. when they want something, they will take from the people as long as they don’t hurt foreigners.

    they are all just samseng kampung. ask najib and his warlords to see if they dare to do this to US, China or even Indonesia. They just sneeze and umno balls will shrink 4 folds.

    they are good at bullying their own citizens. anything else is gutless.

  10. #10 by OrangRojak on Monday, 16 November 2009 - 8:54 pm

  11. #11 by katdog on Monday, 16 November 2009 - 11:21 pm

    Kelantan denied what it is owed rightfully. Kelantan Malays being marginalised by UMNO. Who said UMNO takes care of the Malays?

    If BN persists in refusing to pay the royalties to Kelantan, the state should terminate the contract with Petronas.

    This will definitely scare UMNO, because if Kelantan can terminate its contract so can Sabah and Sarawak. These states can then get 100% control over its oil revenues instead of turning them over to Petronas.

  12. #12 by boh-liao on Monday, 16 November 2009 - 11:21 pm

    Ini lah PM, Pembohong Maha
    1M’sia here, 1 M’sia there
    But he jolly knew why there is really no 1M’sia

  13. #13 by frankyapp on Monday, 16 November 2009 - 11:26 pm

    Hi Guys,I’m back. How you guys doing ? Oil producing states should be paid royalties without question.NR should be sincere and don’t beat around the bushes.Sahah and Sarawak are the main contributors,hence should be given more than the mere 5% as these states are 10 years behind Peninsula Malaysia in term of development.Currently I see 1Malaysia poster is everywhere,since when the country has been split into two parts liken the East and West Berlin and now need to be reunited into 1malaysia again ? If NR is thinking and dreaming to build a bridge linking Peninsula Malaysia and East Malaysia,than 1malaysia makes sense,other than this,it’s all nonsence.

  14. #14 by johnnypok on Tuesday, 17 November 2009 - 12:06 am

    Father = 513

    Son = Murderer

    Grand-son = Playboy

    Great grand son = ????

  15. #15 by Bigjoe on Tuesday, 17 November 2009 - 7:52 am

    For the record, the answer is both lied. Tun Razak promised the NEP would not have quotas and limited years but he never even try to pass a legislation on NEP because he knew that without it, it would be unconstitutional.

    The prodigal son obviously is a poor heir to Razak’s legacy so the fact he lied is not an issue. He has been caught lying more than a few times and will keep doing it. That is not the issue.

    The issue is the excuse he used is old and lame. Such a big issue and all he could come up with is an old excuse that father of cutting corners, Mahathir came up with? Even Mahathir knew his excuse was lame – he just did not give a damn.

    We are faced with unprecedented challenge going into the future and what we have is mediocre product of NEP and BN corruption that can only give lame excuses when faced with the big issues? Is it a wonder from gangsta-wanabe Nazri, KPI minister, ‘The Geek’ Koh, Flailing Preppy Hishamuddin and many mores are giving such lame excuses.

    Najib and his entire administration are just the wrong people to lead the change necessary for this country. BN is the wrong party for the challenge of the times..That is simply it.

  16. #16 by taiking on Tuesday, 17 November 2009 - 9:02 am

    I got off this morning and hit the wall on the other side of my bed. Sheeeet. This is it. I am going to do something good today. I was not quite decided then what good to do. But on the way to my kids’ school an idea presents itself. Yes ladies and gentlemen I will be a defender of najib, today.

    Lim Kit Siang attacked jibby and father yesterday. He was clearly mistaken. When jibby’s father spoke of “petrolium yang dijumpai dan diperolehi di negeri masing-masing samada yang diperolehi dalam kawasan perairan atau di luar perairan negeri tersebut” he actually meant the same thing. He was referring to “di luar perairan negeri tersebut” only. And the words “dalam kawasan perairan” were inserted because they sounded nice and rhymed nicely with “di luar perairan“.

    Well err or was it the other way around? Wait Wait. And just stop confusing me you buggers! Shut up. Let me gather my thoughts … Advisors. Ros. Oi celaka betul mana dia orang.

    … a lie gone awry in public.

  17. #17 by rabbit on Tuesday, 17 November 2009 - 1:30 pm

    oil royalties for petroleum should give to kelantan, why this PM want to keep for him self like others PMs.. shame with his slogan ONE MALAYSIA. I think in his kamus never have this one Malaysia. shame to malaysian. hope Next GE PKr will take place, kick those tadpoles out of Malaysia.

  18. #18 by limkamput on Tuesday, 17 November 2009 - 3:24 pm

    “Mengikut Perjanjian itu, tiap-tiap negeri akan menerima 5% daripada nilai petrolium yang dijumpai dan diperolehi di negeri masing-masing samada yang diperolehi dalam kawasan perairan atau di luar perairan negeri tersebut,…”

    Sdr Lim, I find this answer (by the father) most contradictory. If oil is found offshore of a state (di luar parairan negeri), how then do we define to which state the 5% must be paid to? For example, if oil is found three nautical miles off the state of Penang, which technically belong the Federation, the Federal Government may choose to pay the 5% to the adjoining states such as Kedah or Perak.

    I understand there are politics involved. I am merely trying to argue from the legal and constitutional aspects.

  19. #19 by frankyapp on Tuesday, 17 November 2009 - 3:56 pm

    Hi rabbit,can PR take place ? Currently,this package is tearing apart.Through PR shared the same bed but they don’t share the same dream.Pity isn’t it ?. Many dream to get rich quick and easily fall into Umno/Bn trap. I think frankly many PR leaders/senior members don’t seem to behave and act liken they are the government especially those states under PR control.If this trend continued then malaysians dream to have an alternative government under two political party system would be dimmed. I hope PR leaders would withstand the bombing and slaughtering from Umno/Bn and to challenge them to seek an alternative representation in the next general election.

  20. #20 by OrangRojak on Tuesday, 17 November 2009 - 4:36 pm

    how then do we define to which state the 5% must be paid to?
    Is it as simple as ‘three nautical miles offshore’? Perhaps he was paraphrasing. I would have thought there would be a detailed map somewhere, as for Economic Exclusion Zones (EEZ):


    When an overlap occurs, it is up to the states to delineate the actual boundary. Generally, any point within an overlapping area defaults to the most proximate state.

    It would be nice if there was a gov.my resource available which showed such boundaries. Also surprising.

  21. #21 by taiking on Tuesday, 17 November 2009 - 4:40 pm

    Yes limkamput. Tricky situation you hv pointed out there! If we hv an island, we could perhaps do a complete coastal profile projection in a concentric fashion to see where (i.e. which state, so to speak) the offshore point in question would fall under. The same could also be undertaken if we have a peninsular and not an island. And technically, even a simple incomplete coastal profile could be projected in like manner. The difficulty for the latter two scenario quite obviously is locating a proper centre for the purpose of carrying out the concentric projection.

    As it is, the problem seems to be more than merely legal and constitutional. However, there could be something on this in the laws of the sea, of which I am completely illiterate.

  22. #22 by OrangRojak on Tuesday, 17 November 2009 - 4:44 pm

    Can’t find anything, but I am searching in English. Sabah seems to have some credible information online at their (very slow) townplanning / ICZM site, including a decent map showing boundaries:


    (Adoi. URL with spaces in…)

    You can clearly see an inset showing the problem of concave coastal boundaries and ‘the most proximate state.’!

  23. #23 by limkamput on Tuesday, 17 November 2009 - 5:03 pm

    orang rojak, under the Malaysian Constitution, seas that are three nautical miles from the coast, from whichever state, is considered as federal territory. Yes, it is as simple as three nautical miles off the coast. EEZ or Exclusive Economic Zone is two hundred nautical miles from the coast which the Federal Government claims as its “territory” for the exploitation of resources although in recent years there are argument for continental shelf concept which I am not exactly clear. Not so simple lah. I don’t think the Petroleum Development Act ultra vires the Federal Constitution. If we want more state power and decentralisation, the constitution as it stands today must be rewritten.

  24. #24 by OrangRojak on Tuesday, 17 November 2009 - 5:10 pm

    The EEZ was just an example of how boundaries might be drawn. Maybe I misunderstood your question. If the oil is without the state boundary but within the Federal boundary, the question of which state benefits does not arise (unless there’s some other specific agreement), does it?

  25. #25 by Bobster on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 - 10:02 am

    Good one Uncle Lim, what more to add.

    We rakyat Malaysia surely being taken a ride by the Con-Minister.

You must be logged in to post a comment.