Cost-overruns, annual losses amounting to RM 43 million, purchase of RM 100 million Super Puma helicopter, diversification strategies that did not make sense, and status of PN17. The recent exposé by FMT, “The rise and fall of Sarawak Cable”, is more than a lament for the demise of what was once a celebrated Sarawak industrial champion.
According to FMT, Sarawak Cable’s move to diversify into transmission line projects also ran into difficulties. In 2014, the company was awarded a RM257 million contract by Petronas to build a high-voltage 275kV transmission line at its refinery and petrochemical integrated development (Rapid) project in Pengerang, Johor. Despite clinching some lucrative contracts, including a RM619 million 500kV transmission line project in Sarawak, supply contracts for Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) projects, and work for the Petronas Pengerang Integrated Petroleum Complex in Johor, Sarawak Cable has not been the rising star for Sarawak.
Sarawak Cable is seen as a mirror to the structural frailties of state-linked enterprises in Sarawak, and a warning about how big ambitions — especially when linked to resource politics — can end in public disillusionment. Sarawak state-owned AirBorneo and PETROS are exposing the same risks as Sarawak Cable if strategic partnerships are not carefully considered.
The thing is, Sarawak could not stand on its own feet without Peninsular support, strategic partnerships, manpower and technical know-how.
What happens to Sarawak Cable ought to matter to every Sarawakian who believes in promises of local empowerment, job creation and economic sovereignty via resource management under PETROS.
That descent is not a simple tragedy of the market or a harsh business environment. Rather, it reflects structural problems: weak governance, over-extension, over-reliance on political (or quasi-political) backing, and a failure to deliver on the lofty promises that earned it public support.
From Hope to Collapse: The Anatomy of Failure
The fall of Sarawak Cable was hardly sudden. As other sources covering the company’s financial woes note, the company’s shares sank to multi-month lows. In May 2024, its shares fell 25% in a single session — their lowest point since December 2023 — after the so-called “resuscitation exercise” failed to revive investor confidence.
The plan to revive the company hinged on a pact with a foreign investor, a “white knight”, to inject capital and restructure debts. But as FMT’s narrative and market data show, this rescue plan collapsed. The memorandum of agreement signed with the prospective investor fell through because the parties were unable to agree on an exclusive working arrangement.
More telling is how the company’s status deteriorated: as early as September 2022, SCB was classified under PN17 — an alert category under Bursa rule signalling grave doubts over its viability as a going concern — after its external auditors flagged “material uncertainty” about its ability to continue operating.
For many Sarawakians, Sarawak Cable’s collapse is more than a story of corporate misfortune — it is symbolic of failed promises of local economic empowerment through state-linked industries.
PETROS: A Resource-Rich Future or Another Empty Promise?
Enter PETROS – the entity that was fast created through asset acquisition and transfer from PETRONAS. It currently employ 300+ people in Sarawak, small in comparison to 4,000 Sarawakians who work for PETRONAS based on 2025 estimates.
The founding of PETROS carried with it hopes that Sarawak — long dependent on outside energy firms — could reclaim agency over its oil and gas resources. The political and emotional weight behind that ambition is considerable: under PETROS, proponents argued, Sarawakians would directly benefit from resource wealth, reaping the rights from the controversial MA63.
But as the Sarawak Cable saga reminds us: big capital, big announcements, big promises — they are only as good as governance, transparency, and actual delivery on the ground.
PETROS’ recent deal with PowerChina — a RM2 billion investment on a 500 MW CCGT power plant in Miri — has been attracted many controversies over the local jobs employment as reports suggest only a small fraction of the jobs created would go to locals in Sarawak.
Based on analyst’s estimation, the 500 MW CCGT plant in Miri will create 700 – 1,500 jobs during peak construction, but the reality is the total jobs created during operations (or when the plant is ready) is merely 90-150 jobs. With high-automation technology deployed by PowerChina, it may reduce the headcount to approximately 30 full-time employees.
If PETROS allows such large-scale investments to proceed without firm commitments to local participation, it risks repeating the same pattern that swallowed Sarawak Cable: impressive rhetoric, but little in the way of grassroots impact.
Governance, Accountability — and the Price of Neglect
What the collapse of Sarawak Cable most starkly reveals is governance failure. The premature collapse was not inevitable — other firms in comparable sectors operate successfully. But when a company rides on political goodwill rather than robust commercial fundamentals, it becomes vulnerable.
This is the danger for PETROS. Operating in the resource-rich oil and gas sector, with greater stakes and more public scrutiny, PETROS cannot afford systemic missteps.
Unlike a cable manufacturer, what is at stake here is not just investor or shareholder money — but the future integrity of Sarawak’s resource wealth, and the livelihoods and trust of its people.
It is easy to announce big deals, splash figures in headlines, and promise economic leapfrogging. It is harder — but essential — to embed transparency, ensure local participation, guard against cronyism, and deliver real, measurable benefits.
Why Sarawakians Are Watching — And Demanding More
From the vantage of everyday Sarawakians, the Sarawak Cable story is not business-as-usual: it is cautionary. They have seen how a “homegrown champion” can end up reduced to near-worthlessness, taking with it the hopes of workers, investors, and communities.
What they now ask of PETROS — and those who lead it — is not more announcements, but proof that it will benefit directly to the local employment, government’s revenue and reducing Sarawak’s debt.
Sarawakians also need proof that contracts by PETROS are awarded transparently, that jobs go to locals, that profits are reinvested in communities, and that the company is run professionally, not politically.
Will PETROS learn from the mistakes of Sarawak Cable? Or will it follow the same path, under a different name, only to leave another generation of Sarawakians disappointed?
