By Daniel John Jambun, Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) Kota Kinabalu
KOTA KINABALU: Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) expresses grave concern and outrage over the Federal Government’s continued dilution of Sabah’s constitutional rights through a series of so-called “reviews” under Article 112D.
Let us be absolutely clear:
What has been presented as “progress” is, in truth, documented evidence of constitutional non-compliance.
1. THE GAZETTE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF — AND IT IS DAMNING*
Under the *Federal Government Gazette P.U. (A) 364/2023*, the law states:
“Bagi tempoh enam tahun… Kerajaan Persekutuan hendaklah membuat kepada Negeri Sabah… pemberian masing-masing berjumlah RM125.6 juta, RM300 juta, RM306 juta, RM312 juta, RM318 juta dan RM325 juta.”
This means:
* Sabah is allocated between RM125.6 million to RM325 million annually
* For the period *2022 to 2027*
Let the public understand the scale of this:
This is not even remotely close to 40% of federal revenue derived from Sabah.
2. THIS IS NOT A REVIEW — THIS IS A REPLACEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION*
Article 112C and the Tenth Schedule guarantee Sabah:
A share based on revenue derived from the State
But what has been done instead?
* A fixed lump sum is imposed
* Through negotiation
* Without transparency
* Without any disclosed calculation of actual revenue
The constitutional formula has been quietly replaced with arbitrary figures.
This is not compliance.
This is substitution.
*3. FROM RM300 MILLION TO RM600 MILLION — STILL A FRACTION OF WHAT IS OWED*
The Prime Minister has since announced an increase to *RM600 million annually*
Let us ask the obvious question:
If Sabah’s entitlement is based on 40% of revenue — where is the calculation?
Even RM600 million is:
* A political figure
* Not a constitutional figure
Doubling an unconstitutional amount does not make it constitutional.
*4. A HISTORICAL BETRAYAL*
In 1969, when the first review was conducted:
* The agreed amount reflected the growth grant and revenue reality
* It was closely aligned to the constitutional intent
Today:
* Sabah generates billions in federal revenue
* Yet receives *hundreds of millions*
This is not a review. This is a steady erosion of constitutional rights over decades.
*5. STATE CONSENT DOES NOT LEGITIMISE CONSTITUTIONAL BREACH*
It has been suggested that Sabah “agreed” to these arrangements.
Let us be clear:
No state government has the authority to waive or dilute a constitutional entitlement.
The Federal Constitution is supreme.
Consent cannot legalise what is unconstitutional.
*6. THE GAZETTE IS NOT A SHIELD — IT IS EVIDENCE*
The Government may rely on the Gazette as justification.
But legally and morally:
The Gazette is not proof of compliance — it is proof of deviation.
It shows:
* No transparent methodolog
* No linkage to actual revenue
* No adherence to constitutional principles
*7. THIS IS WHY THE COURTS MUST INTERVENE*
The Sabah Law Society’s legal challenge is not only justified — it is necessary.
Because this is no longer about numbers.
This is about whether the Constitution still means anything.
If the Federal Government can:
* Ignore the formula
* Replace it with negotiated figures
* And call it “review”
Then:
Every constitutional safeguard becomes negotiable.
8. FINAL WORD
For over 60 years, Sabah has been told to wait.
Now we are told to accept:
* RM300 million
* RM600 million
* Or whatever figure is politically convenient
But the Constitution does not say:
“Such amount as the Federal Government deems affordable.”
It says:
A share based on revenue derived from Sabah.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
Sabah is not asking for more.
Sabah is asking for what is already guaranteed.
Until the 40% entitlement is properly calculated and honoured:
Every Gazette, every announcement, and every “deal” will stand as evidence — not of progress — but of breach.
