By Daniel John Jambun, Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation.
KOTA KINABALU: Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) takes note of the latest response by Remy Majangkim’s attempting to justify the “pass the hat” approach as a form of people-powered sovereignty.
Let us be absolutely clear:
This argument does not strengthen Sabah’s position — it dangerously lowers the standard of governance.
A False Dichotomy — People’s Power vs Government Duty
We are told:
Governments act only when people move first.
This is a convenient narrative — but it is incomplete and misleading.
Yes, people demand rights.
Yes, people mobilise.
But once a government is formed:
It assumes legal, constitutional, and fiduciary duties.
This is not optional.
This is not conditional.
This is not subject to fundraising.
The defence of sovereignty is not activism — it is governance.
Romanticising Failure Does Not Make It Leadership
We are now asked to celebrate crowdfunding as “solidarity” and “empowerment.”
Let us call this what it is:
A normalisation of institutional failure.
If Sabah must fund its own legal defence because governments refuse:
That is not empowerment
That is not heroism
That is not democracy
That is abandonment.
You do not fix a broken system by glorifying the fact that it is broken.
The Dangerous Precedent Remains — And It Is Real
The rebuttal dismisses concerns about precedent.
But the question still stands — and remains unanswered:
If sovereignty litigation is crowd-funded today,
what stops other core state responsibilities from being shifted tomorrow?
Border enforcement
Security operations
Constitutional litigation
> Governance cannot be selectively outsourced when it becomes inconvenient.
Once that line is crossed, it will not be easily restored.
The Central Evasion — Who Is Legally Responsible?
The rebuttal asks: “Which government?”
This is not a difficult question.
Both.
The Federal Government has constitutional obligations
The State Government has a duty to defend Sabah’s interests
If either fails:
The answer is accountability — not substitution.
Civil society may support.
Civil society may advocate.
But civil society cannot replace the State.
Legal Strength Does Not Justify Financial Improvisation
We are told the case is strong.
We are told history supports Sabah.
That may well be true.
But strength of a case does not answer the real issue:
Why must Sabahans pay to enforce what is already constitutionally theirs?
If a right must be purchased to be realised:
It is no longer functioning as a right — it has been reduced to a struggle.
And that is precisely the problem BoPiMaFo raised.
“Passing the Hat” Is Not the Foundation of Governance
The claim that every movement in history began this way is rhetorically appealing — but fundamentally misplaced.
Yes, movements begin with people.
But governance begins with responsibility.
We are not in a pre-independence struggle.
We are in a constitutional federation.
And in such a system:
Rights are not supposed to depend on collections.
The Real Issue — Lowering the Bar for Government
What is being defended here is not just fundraising.
It is something more troubling:
A redefinition of what government is allowed to get away with.
If we accept this logic:
Governments may neglect their duties
Citizens must step in financially
And failure becomes a shared burden
This is not empowerment. This is the dilution of accountability.
A Final Word
BoPiMaFo stands by its position:
Defending Sabah’s sovereignty is not a crowdfunding exercise.
We respect the passion of those involved.
We recognise the frustration driving such efforts.
But we reject the attempt to turn necessity into principle.
Do not normalise what should never be normal.
Do not glorify what is fundamentally a failure of governance.
Sabah does not need charity.
Sabah does not need collections.
Sabah needs its governments — federal and state — to do their duty.
Nothing more.
Nothing less.
