In a rare show of unity, opposition leaders and MPs including Muyhiddin Yassin, Hamzah Zainuddin, Radzi Jidin, Fadhli Shaari, Saifuddin Abdullah (PN), and even Sarawak PN chief Jaziri Alkaf rallied to defend Petronas.

Sarawak’s Premier, Abang Johari Openg, may be riding high—but the political tightrope he walks has never been thinner.

For years, his state government has pushed aggressively for more control over oil and gas, claiming it’s simply asserting its rights. But in the process, it has stirred a hornet’s nest in the federation.

Will the ghost of Tun Razak’s BN emerge amid Abang Jo’s overreach?

Now, the prospect of a new federal mega-collaboration looms—one that may restore the kind of centralised unity Malaysia hasn’t seen since the era of Tun Abdul Razak.

This is no longer just about royalties or revenue. It’s about how far you can bend the federation before it snaps.

The new coalition math: 186 parliamentary seats, dwarfing GPS’s 23

The numbers are already in place: Pakatan Harapan (PH) (82), Perikatan Nasional (PN) (74), and Barisan Nasional (BN) (30) make up a formidable 186-seat bloc—enough for a super two-thirds majority in Parliament. Crucially, this coalition no longer needs Gabungan Parti Sarawak’s (GPS) (23) support to govern.

Now, Perikatan Nasioanal leaders seemed open to working with “moderate parties”. Hamzah Zainuddin, opposition leader would consider a tie-up with UMNO “for a common cause.”

So will the MPs come together—across party lines—to form a new version of Razak’s BN, framed as a unity pact to “protect national interests”, to regain the power balance in their favour?

After all, every component party in GPS today—were once part of Razak’s BN: a strong federal pact that held the nation together, balancing state interests within a united framework. 

Crossing the line

The catalyst was Sarawak State Government’s legal notice to Petronas Carigali in May, declaring the national oil firm’s operations in Sarawak illegaly.

Why has it come to this—where MPs across the divide feel compelled to unite in defence of Petronas?

Let’s be clear: this isn’t about who’s right it is—it’s about protecting a system that works.

Sarawak State Government is demanding control of the aggregator role—the heart of Malaysia’s gas ecosystem. This means allowing Petros to buy gas from upstream producers, set the price, and sell to downstream users. It’s not just administrative—it’s control over the entire midstream.

However, under the Petroleum Development Act 1974, that role was given to Petronas for a reason. As aggregator, Petronas ensures stable pricing, secures supply, and integrates the entire oil and gas value chain. This function alone generates RM10–20 billion a year.

Taking that away would:

1) Disrupt price stability

2) Break supply chain integration

3) Strip Petronas of key revenue

4) Fragment the national energy system

Just give Sarawak all the eggs

Here’s the irony: It would make more sense for Sarawak to ask for all the eggs—a larger share of federal revenue—than to break the system that lays them.

Let Petronas manage the ecosystem. If Sarawak wants more, the answer lies in federal-state recalibration—not corporate disruption.

This isn’t about rights. It’s about federation vs fragmentation.

Once the system collapses, there won’t be any eggs left to fight over.

Rhetorics vs reality

Abang Jo keeps saying Petronas and Petros can work together. Sounds nice.

But here’s the truth: it’s just rhetoric.

In reality, it is not that simple. Far from it.

The aggregator controls the flow of gas—who buys, who sells, and at what price. If Petros takes that role, Petronas loses pricing power, market coordination, and RM10–20 billion in revenue annually.

You can’t have “two aggregators” any more than you can have two drivers for one car. It leads to confusion, duplication, and a breakdown of the national oil and gas system.

This isn’t a question of cooperation—it’s a question of who holds the steering wheel.

So when Abang Jo says “we’ll work together”, what they really mean is: Petronas keeps producing, Petros controls the money flow.

And that’s exactly what puts the golden goose at risk—stripping Petronas of RM10 billion in value at a time when it’s expected to deliver more than RM30 billion in annual dividends to the federal government.

Abang Jo says Petros wants to “work with Petronas, not kill it.” But it feels more like riding on its back—until it breaks.

So why now?

The answer may lie not in law, but in money.

Sarawak is running out of forests to log. Timber, once its cash cow, is drying up.

Where has much of the wealth gone to?

According to Bruno Manser Fonds, the Taib Mahmud family alone is worth over USD21 billion—that’s nearly RM100 billion. That’s not wealth generated for the people. That’s wealth stolen from them.

Now the state wants gas.

And the rhetoric—“Sarawak’s oil,” “Sarawak’s rights”—is being used to sell an emotive narrative that conveniently ignores decades of elite enrichment at the people’s expense.

This is not about putting food on Sarawakian tables. It’s about refueling government coffers.

What if every state declared “their” O&G off-limits?

The federation would collapse. Investors would flee. And Malaysia’s only globally competitive sector—oil and gas—would end.

That’s why the reaction from the opposition MPs have been swift, bipartisan, and decisive.

A new political alignment for a new crisis

The potential PH–PN–BN collaboration isn’t just a mathematical curiosity. It’s a real possibility—especially if framed around protecting Petronas, ensuring national energy security, and preserving economic stability.

Back in the 1970s, Razak built BN to unify fractious politics. Today, a similar narrative could be used to form a new coalition: one that transcends party lines, sidesteps ideological clashes, and secures control.

If that happens, Sarawak’s 23 GPS seats become irrelevant.

Abang Jo’s overreach?

Abang Jo may have overplayed his hand. After GE15, GPS was the kingmaker. It won federal respect, influence, and a Deputy Prime Minister seat.

It could have spent the term locking in Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) gains and building infrastructure momentum.

Instead, it went for Petronas.

That decision may prove costly. In attempting to extract too much, Sarawak risks triggering a massive political coalition that could nullify its influence.

A narrowing path forward

But all is not lost. Abang Jo may still pivot.

If he reframes his demands—not as a takeover but as a call for fairer revenue-sharing and greater development equity—it may retain its role as a critical partner in nation-building.

Petronas doesn’t have to be gutted. Its dividend formula at the federal and state level can be revised.

The solution isn’t to fight over who owns the golden goose. It’s to agree on how to share the eggs.

Federation or fragmentation

This is a defining moment—not just for Sarawak, but for Malaysia.

Will the country come together in a new coalition to protect its oil and gas foundations? Or will political fragmentation threaten the very sector that has kept the economy afloat?

Abang Jo must now ask himself: is he fighting for the people—or for the elites? And is he ready to live with the consequences of losing GPS’s political leverage in parliament?

If history is any guide, the federation will close ranks when pushed to the wall.