Sarawak’s ambition is legitimate. But on its flagship project the highest-value work has largely gone abroad, while important questions about transparency remain unanswered. PETROS can settle those questions—not through rhetoric, but through greater openness.
PETROS’s Legitimacy Is Not in Question—Its Accountability Is
Few would dispute that Sarawak has every legitimate aspiration to play a larger role in managing and developing its own natural resources. For more than half a century, the state’s petroleum wealth has contributed substantially to Malaysia’s national development, making it entirely reasonable for Sarawakians to ask how that wealth can generate greater opportunities for future generations. PETROS was established to become the institutional vehicle for that ambition.
Precisely because that ambition is legitimate, PETROS should welcome scrutiny. Public confidence is earned not merely through ownership of strategic assets, but through demonstrable performance, transparency and accountability. A national champion is ultimately judged not by the flag it flies, but by what it delivers, the capabilities it creates and what it is prepared to disclose. Legitimacy is strengthened—not weakened—by accountability.
The Flagship Project: Where Does the Value Ultimately Reside?
The clearest test of PETROS’s industrial strategy lies in its flagship RM2.5 billion, 500-megawatt combined-cycle gas turbine power plant in Miri. As a first-time developer, it is entirely understandable that PETROS would engage experienced international partners.
There is nothing unusual about awarding engineering, procurement and construction responsibilities to POWERCHINA or procuring advanced turbine technology together with long-term maintenance services from Mitsubishi Power of Japan. Every successful resource-producing nation has relied upon foreign expertise during the early stages of industrial development.
The more important question is not why foreign companies were engaged, but what capabilities Sarawak secured in return.
In projects of this scale, the greatest long-term value seldom lies solely in physical construction. It resides in engineering knowledge, proprietary technology, maintenance capability, supplier development and the gradual transfer of industrial expertise.
These are the assets that continue generating economic value long after construction has been completed.
Around the world, successful resource-producing nations have consistently sought to ensure that foreign participation also strengthens domestic capability.
Norway, for example, deliberately required international energy companies to develop local suppliers, engineering expertise and industrial capability as a condition of participating in its petroleum industry. The objective was not simply to extract hydrocarbons, but to build an internationally competitive oil-services ecosystem.
Malaysia has pursued a similar philosophy through PETRONAS. Over the past three decades, supplier development initiatives have helped cultivate Malaysian engineering companies, strengthen domestic supply chains and deepen local participation throughout the energy value chain. Government data also point to substantial procurement opportunities being created for Sarawakian businesses.²
Against this benchmark, the relevant question is straightforward. PETROS has not publicly disclosed the local-content conditions attached to the Miri project, nor any vendor development programme, procurement breakdown or subcontractor participation. Publishing such information would strengthen public confidence and demonstrate how this landmark investment contributes to building Sarawakian industrial capability beyond the completion of a single power station.
It is also worth remembering that the Miri project is not expected to generate commercial revenue before the end of 2027. PETROS therefore remains at a relatively early stage of institutional development. Recognising this reality makes the case for transparency stronger, not weaker.
Greater Authority Requires Greater Transparency
PETROS today occupies an increasingly strategic position within Sarawak’s energy landscape, particularly following its expanded responsibilities as the state’s gas aggregator. Institutions entrusted with managing strategic public resources inevitably face higher expectations of transparency—not as an allegation of wrongdoing, but as a fundamental principle of public governance.
Compared with many international peers, PETROS has thus far released relatively limited public information. While it has published a sustainability report covering 2022–2023, annual financial statements, dividend disclosures, procurement statistics, Sarawakian employment figures and detailed local-content reporting have yet to become part of regular public disclosure.³
Two examples illustrate how relatively straightforward disclosure could further strengthen public confidence. PETROS announced a RM40 billion five-year capital expenditure programme in October 2024. Given the scale of that commitment, periodic public updates on implementation would naturally be of considerable public interest. Likewise, while the Sarawak Government has referred to PETROS providing free gas to B40 households, PETROS’s own public materials have referred to free installation of affordable energy infrastructure. A simple clarification would remove unnecessary ambiguity.
Greater transparency need not impose significant costs. On the contrary, it would reduce speculation, strengthen institutional credibility and reinforce public trust at a time when PETROS is assuming greater strategic responsibilities.
Major national energy companies such as PETRONAS and Norway’s Equinor have long regarded regular financial reporting, sustainability disclosures and procurement transparency as integral components of sound corporate governance. As PETROS continues to mature, adopting comparable disclosure standards would represent a natural progression rather than an exceptional burden.
The Question That Matters Most: How Are Ordinary Sarawakians Benefiting?
Ultimately, the success of any national energy company cannot be measured solely by assets under management or projects completed. Its enduring contribution is reflected in the opportunities it creates for its people.
Publicly available government data indicate that PETRONAS has established a substantial footprint in Sarawak through employment, local procurement, education, scholarships and community investment accumulated over several decades.
PETROS, understandably, remains a much younger institution. Any comparison with PETRONAS must therefore recognise the difference between an organisation that has evolved over five decades and one that has existed for only a few years.
Based on publicly disclosed information, PETROS has reported lifetime corporate social responsibility expenditure of approximately RM14.5 million and announced two Master’s scholarships in 2025. Based on publicly disclosed figures, the difference in disclosed CSR expenditure is roughly forty-to-one. That should not be interpreted as a measure of institutional success or failure, but rather as a reflection of organisations at very different stages of development.
PETRONAS has had five decades, a national balance sheet and a global commercial presence to build its record. PETROS remains at the beginning of its institutional journey.
The more important question is therefore not whether PETROS has already matched PETRONAS, but whether it is establishing clear targets, measurable milestones and a transparent roadmap for narrowing that gap over time. Citizens are generally prepared to accept that institutions require time to mature. What they seek is evidence of direction, commitment and measurable progress.
What Would Settle the Debate?
The debate surrounding PETROS need not become polarised. This is neither an argument against Sarawak’s aspirations nor against PETROS itself. On the contrary, a stronger, more transparent PETROS would ultimately strengthen both Sarawak and Malaysia.
Many of the questions raised can be addressed through relatively straightforward measures. Publishing the local-content conditions attached to the Miri project would demonstrate how industrial capability is being developed. Regular disclosure of dividend payments, Sarawakian employment figures and procurement expenditure would strengthen accountability. A clearly articulated roadmap for scholarships, community investment and vendor development over the next five years would provide measurable benchmarks for public evaluation.
Finally, committing to annual financial reporting, sustainability reporting and internationally recognised transparency practices would reinforce PETROS’s institutional credibility as it assumes greater strategic responsibilities.
None of these measures requires fundamental policy change. They require only a commitment to greater openness.
Greater Control Should Mean Greater Openness
The future of PETROS should not be judged by symbolism alone. Its long-term legitimacy will ultimately depend upon whether it transforms Sarawak’s resource wealth into lasting industrial capability, stronger local enterprises and broader opportunities for its people.
Experience across the world’s successful resource-producing economies points to a consistent lesson: public ownership of strategic resources carries with it an equally important obligation to demonstrate how those resources are governed, how value is created and how citizens ultimately benefit. Transparency is not an administrative burden. It is an essential foundation of institutional legitimacy, public confidence and durable economic development.
Greater control over public resources should therefore bring greater openness, not fewer answers – UTUSAN
