A few points regarding the proposal to ask Petronas to withdraw from Myanmar…
Symbolic acts like this one can very often have a negative effect on mobilisation overall, insofar as they do not have a plausible chance of having a direct impact, and activists ultimately feel that their efforts were in vain.
In order for a symbolic act to create pressure, it generally has to be within the context of some sort of democratic dynamic whereby powerful institutions understand that the symbolic action expresses a broad-based sentiment that has the potential to manifest in practical ways.
Any previous examples that pertain to corporations like Shell or Exxon, or any other private oil companies fall within this sort of dynamic.
Petronas is state-owned; that is a key difference.
You cannot talk about the Malaysian economy without talking about Petronas, and vice versa/. There are very few (if any) options for applying practical consumer pressure on Petronas.
With regard to the proposed US military sanctions, as I said, there is going to be very little impact on a practical level. The same is true regarding the proposed ban on imports of jade and rubies from Myanmar..
The top two importers of precious stones from Myanmar are China and India. Trade with the US in jade and rubies from Myanmar can continue with only one extra step: buying from China, India, or Thailand. This just adds some complication to the export of jade and rubies, which will, of course, also drive up the price. Not to mention the fact that the army has already dealt with this type of ban in the past, and knows quite well how to navigate it.
Again, in my view, asking Petronas to withdraw from Myanmar is unrealistic, and has more potential to negatively impact mobilisation than to positively impact it. This strategy falls into the common mistake of demanding companies behave as moral entities, which they are not. If you do not have a way to prove to them that something is bad for business, there is no real point in asking them to comply