A contract changes hands. The work remains, but will the workers? Years of experience can count for little when the next bid promises savings. Brunei wants more people in private employment. What gives them confidence to stay if their family’s future depends on goodwill alone at every change of contractor?
By Malai Hassan Othman
11 October 2026
The letter began with an apology. “Admin, tolong postkan,” the writer asked, then apologised to anyone who might feel offended. The appeal was for local workers with families to feed.
Published on a community Facebook page on 7 October, it was soon shared more widely online, under the heading “Wawasan 2035? Even oil and gas don’t guarantee your future now.”
The writer describes themselves as a local contract worker. According to the letter, tenders are still running for contracts beginning in early 2027, leaving existing workers uncertain about their jobs.
The writer accepts that companies must control costs. Yet pay, the letter says, has already been adjusted several times. Household commitments do not adjust so easily.
The letter lists them: car payments that continue, a planned home now out of reach, and school fees.
It also cites a reported move of the Brunei Shell Petroleum (BSP) warehouse to Muara, which would mean longer journeys or a family move.
Then comes the line that stays with me. “It is easy for those on high salaries to say ‘Reduce cost’, ‘Meet KPI’, ‘Right sizing’,” the writer says, in words I have translated from Malay. Who looks after the survival of the local worker?
According to the letter, workers were told to raise concerns face to face or through grievance channels. The managers they met could not answer, because the uncertainty lay in contracts not yet awarded.
The writer’s identity and individual circumstances remain unverified. The wider question deserves scrutiny: when the work passes to another company, what happens to the people doing it?
The post that shared it set the letter beside other recent viral claims: lay-offs at contractors, salary cuts, and now no rollover. Then it asked a pointed question: “And what about LBD?” LBD is the Local Business Development framework, the rulebook for local jobs in oil and gas.
The comments that followed ranged from anger to resignation. One recalled a time when having a Shell worker as a son-in-law was a family’s pride. Another wrote that oil and gas is no longer the rice bowl career it once was.
A third spoke of the prospect of cutting back from rice with meat and vegetables to rice and eggs.
The question about LBD deserves more than reassurance. Workers need to know what the framework means for their next job.
The work continues but the employer changes
Rollover means existing workers move to the contractor taking over the work. It matters because a change of employer need not mean the work itself has gone.
The letter alleges that BSP’s new contracts will carry a “No Rollover” condition. That claim needs to be distinguished from the absence of a guaranteed transfer.
My understanding from the industry is that BSP encourages rollover, while the successful vendor assesses whether it is feasible. That does not establish the terms of these forthcoming contracts.
Contract value matters. Industry sources describe tight pricing on some contracts, with bids at or near cost. Where margins are thin, retaining workers on existing pay becomes harder.
Lower-paid recruits may appear cheaper. But experienced workers also bring knowledge of the job, equipment and safety requirements. A retention decision should account for that value.
Industry accounts also describe reductions in the work covered by some contracts. Where less work is required, fewer positions may remain, whoever holds the contract.
Encouragement from an operator and cost concerns from a contractor can leave workers uncertain about who will decide their future. They need clear terms and timely decisions.
BSP and the contractors should tell workers plainly which arrangement applies, what consideration they will receive, and when a decision will come. Families need time to prepare.
A contractor taking over a smaller scope may not be able to keep everyone. Where substantially the same work continues, experienced local workers deserve a fair chance to keep doing it.
The stakes reach beyond the oilfield. Bruneians are urged to build private-sector careers. That advice is harder to follow when every retender can unsettle both a job and a salary.
This uncertainty helps explain the attraction of permanent public-sector employment. Families need a dependable income on which to plan housing, schooling and the years ahead.
Online posts also spoke of oil and gas workers seeking agricultural work in Australia. Those accounts do not establish the scale of migration, but they express anxiety about opportunities at home.
What the framework provides
Directive 2, issued on 1 February 2012 under the Minister of Energy at the Prime Minister’s Office, sets out the LBD framework for the oil and gas industry. Its guidelines followed in April.
Under the framework, Core contracts carry local-employment targets of 50 to 90 per cent. Basic contracts carry targets above 90 per cent, with wholly local management.
Section 4.7 of the guidelines says specific categories or contracts “may include the rollover of existing Contractor’s personnel”. It links that provision to operational continuity and employment security.
The wording permits rollover to be written into contracts; it does not impose a universal requirement. The terms of the particular contract therefore matter.
The 2012 guidelines require annual business plans and performance reports three times a year. They specify local-employment numbers, but do not expressly require a separate measure of worker retention.
The framework counts heads, not people. Its local-employment percentage may remain intact even as experienced workers lose their jobs. That percentage alone cannot tell the whole story.
Wages have a safeguard of their own. The then Energy Department at the Prime Minister’s Office issued Reasonable Wage guidelines for the oil and gas industry, published on BSP’s website. They cover local workers up to National Diploma level in drilling rigs, well services, marine industries and offshore works.
Operators must make compliance a contractual term. The directive also says existing basic wages above its threshold, and allowances under those contracts, must not be reduced as a consequence of that directive.
But a wage safeguard and a transfer arrangement answer different questions. A worker still needs to know whether the next contractor will offer a job at all, and on what terms.
An ambition for growth
The framework belongs to a period of ambitious expansion plans. The 2014 Energy White Paper set a target of 50,000 energy-sector jobs by 2035, with 80 per cent held by Bruneians.
Expansion creates opportunities to recruit and retain trained people. When work becomes scarcer, a provision that allows rollover leaves workers dependent on the arrangements made for each contract.
The pressure described by industry sources makes that distinction more urgent. Retendering can become an occasion to reduce costs, with consequences for both employment and pay.
One commenter put the wider point bluntly: “A vision is not a funding strategy.” Wawasan 2035 was meant to leave the country less exposed to exactly this moment.
The government knows where the jobs are lost. On 7 August 2025, Legislative Council member Awang Haji Salleh Bostaman bin Haji Zainal Abidin asked how experienced locals are protected during right-sizing.
The minister’s answer said upstream job losses mostly involved contracts not renewed or ending after projects, alongside operational adjustments. It cited Bruneianisation, LBD measures and screening of foreign-worker applications.
It also described succession planning and help with finding work across sectors. Those measures matter. None guarantees a transfer when the contractor changes, which is exactly the moment the letter describes.
Three practical changes
The existing framework offers a starting point. The Department of Energy, operators and contractors should review how employment continuity is handled in tendering and identify what further provisions are needed.
First, give credible workforce-retention plans explicit weight in tender evaluation, alongside competence, safety and cost. A cheaper bid should have to explain what it will do with the people already doing the work.
Second, require successor contractors to give qualified existing local workers first consideration for continuing roles, with any changes to pay, duties or location made clear before acceptance.
First consideration alone will not stop falling pay. It needs transparent terms and enough notice for workers to judge what an offer means for their families.
Third, report retention outcomes alongside local headcounts: how many existing workers received offers, how many accepted, and how many were displaced. Aggregate figures would show the transition without naming anyone.
These measures would not save every job. They would make those managing a transition account for what happens to the people when the work itself continues.
The letter alone establishes neither a breach nor compliance. The policy question remains: how should the framework protect experienced local workers when their work passes to another contractor?
The writer’s concern is plain enough: years of work should count for something when the contract changes hands.
Goodwill can help a worker through a change of contractor. It is a fragile basis on which to plan a family’s future. The rules should carry more of that weight.





