By Daniel John Jambun, Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)
KOTA KINABALU: Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) responds directly to the statement by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Sabah and Sarawak Affairs), Mustapha Sakmud, that Putrajaya is “not ruling out” an increase in the Special Grant for Sabah in Budget 2027.
We state clearly:
This is no longer a matter of interpretation.
This is a matter of compliance.
1. THE HIGH COURT HAS ALREADY SET THE DIRECTION — WHY IS PUTRAJAYA STILL HESITATING?
In October 2025, the High Court confirmed what Sabahans have long asserted:
The failure to properly implement Sabah’s 40% revenue entitlement is unlawful.
Clear timelines were established.
Clear obligations were recognised.
Yet today, instead of compliance, we hear:
– “not ruling out”
– “subject to economic conditions”
– “to be considered in Budget 2027”
Datuk Mustapha Sakmud must answer:
Why is a court-recognised obligation being treated as a future option?
2. THIS IS A DELAY STRATEGY — NOT A POLICY FRAMEWORK
Let us call this what it is:
A three-step pattern has emerged:
Delay — extend discussions, form committees, “study” the issue
Substitute — introduce Special Grant increases as a distraction
Dilute — shift the narrative away from the 40% constitutional formula
This is not governance.
This is structured avoidance.
3. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO “FISCAL SPACE”
Sabah’s entitlement under:
– Article 112C
– Article 112D
– The Tenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution
is not conditional.
It is not dependent on:
– national debt levels
– budget cycles
– economic convenience
A constitutional obligation does not disappear when finances are tight.
It becomes more urgent — not less.
4. SPECIAL GRANT IS BEING USED TO MASK NON-COMPLIANCE
The continued emphasis on increasing the Special Grant is not accidental.
It serves one purpose:
To create the illusion of progress while avoiding the core issue.
Let the facts be clear:
– The Special Grant is discretionary
– The 40% entitlement is mandatory
One is political.
The other is constitutional.
Replacing one with the other is not reform.
It is regression.
5. A SABAH MINISTER CANNOT REMAIN NEUTRAL ON SABAH’S RIGHTS
Datuk Mustapha Sakmud holds a critical responsibility.
He is not merely conveying federal positions.
He is expected to defend Sabah’s constitutional interests within the Federal Government.
Silence, ambiguity, and conditional language are not neutral.
They favour delay.
Sabah requires clarity — not careful wording.
6. SABAH IS A CREDITOR — AND THE DEBT IS ACCUMULATING
This issue is no longer about annual allocations.
It is about decades of underpayment.
Every year of delay compounds the liability.
Every deferral increases the constitutional debt owed to Sabah.
The question is no longer whether Sabah is entitled.
The question is:
How much is now owed — and why has it not been settled?
BoPiMaFo calls on Datuk Mustapha Sakmud to state his position without ambiguity:
– Will the Federal Government comply fully with the 40% constitutional formula — yes or no?
– What is the exact timeline for implementation?
– Will arrears be calculated and paid?
– Why is a High Court-recognised obligation still being delayed?
Sabahans are no longer asking for explanations.
They are demanding enforcement.
“A court-recognised right delayed is a constitutional breach continued.”
