RM1.5 BILLION INTERIM GRANT DOES NOT REPLACE SABAH’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
DANIEL JOHN JAMBUN, President Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)
KOTA KINABALU: Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) takes note of the statement by Deputy Minister Mustapha Sakmud claiming that the RM1.5 billion interim special grant demonstrates that the Federal Government is listening to Sabah and that the issue requires close cooperation between Putrajaya and the Sabah Government.
We welcome any increase in financial allocations to Sabah.
However, Sabahans must not allow constitutional rights to be rebranded as acts of federal generosity.
1. THE REAL QUESTION IS SIMPLE
If the Federal Government is genuinely committed to Sabah’s constitutional entitlement under Articles 112C and 112D of the Federal Constitution, why does the matter continue to face legal resistance and prolonged litigation?
Why must Sabahans continue to fight in court for rights that already exist within the Constitution?
Why are interim payments being celebrated while the constitutional formula remains unresolved?
And most importantly:
If Putrajaya is truly “listening”, why has Sabah spent decades waiting for full implementation?
Listening is easy.
Implementation is what matters.
2. A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS NOT A FEDERAL GIFT
The RM1.5 billion interim special grant should not be portrayed as a benevolent federal concession.
The 40% revenue entitlement is not:
– a development grant,
– a political donation,
– a discretionary allocation,
– or a goodwill payment.
It is a constitutional entitlement negotiated as part of the formation of Malaysia.
Sabah did not join Malaysia as a charity recipient.
Sabah entered Malaysia as a founding partner with agreed constitutional safeguards.
No amount of public relations can change that reality.
3. INTERIM PAYMENTS CANNOT BECOME A SUBSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
For years Sabahans have been told to be patient.
For years Sabahans have been promised:
– negotiations,
– committees,
– technical discussions,
– special councils,
– working groups,
– and future settlements.
Yet the core constitutional issue remains unresolved.
Interim payments may provide temporary relief.
But interim payments are not constitutional compliance.
A temporary arrangement cannot become a permanent excuse.
4. SABAHANS DESERVE TO SEE THE NUMBERS
The announcement of a RM1.5 billion interim special grant immediately raises important questions that deserve public answers.
Among them:
– What is the legal basis for the RM1.5 billion payment?
– Under what mechanism is the payment being made?
– Has a new Article 112D review been completed?
– What formula was used?
– What is the total federal net revenue collected from Sabah upon which the constitutional entitlement is calculated?
These are not unreasonable questions.
They are questions of transparency.
If the Federal Government expects Sabahans to believe that RM1.5 billion reflects meaningful progress toward the constitutional entitlement, then the Federal Government should publish:
– the total revenue figures,
– the methodology used,
– the deductions applied,
– and the resulting constitutional calculation.
Without disclosure, Sabahans are being asked to celebrate a number without being shown how the number was derived.
5. TRANSPARENCY WOULD END THE SPECULATION
We are repeatedly told that determining Sabah’s entitlement is complicated.
Yet in the modern era, federal authorities already possess comprehensive records involving:
– income tax collections,
– customs duties,
– excise duties,
– petroleum-related revenues,
– and other federal revenue streams.
The Federal Government knows how much revenue it collects.
The question Sabahans are asking is simple:
Why can the figures not be disclosed?
If the Government believes the RM1.5 billion figure is fair and justified, then publish the calculations.
Transparency would immediately answer many of the questions currently being asked by Sabahans.
The refusal to disclose the numbers only fuels suspicion that Sabah is still not being told the full story.
A government that refuses to disclose the calculation while asking Sabahans to be grateful for the outcome should not be surprised when Sabahans demand greater transparency.
6. SABAHANS ARE TIRED OF SYMBOLISM
The Federal Government frequently speaks about:
– MA63 implementation,
– restoring Sabah’s rights,
– federal-state cooperation,
– and national partnership.
Yet Sabahans continue to witness:
– delayed implementation,
– unresolved constitutional disputes,
– legal battles,
– and continued uncertainty over revenue rights.
The problem is no longer a lack of announcements.
The problem is a lack of finality.
Sabahans are not asking for more speeches.
Sabahans are asking for closure.
7. IF THE GOVERNMENT ACCEPTS THE PRINCIPLE, IMPLEMENT IT
The Federal Government cannot simultaneously claim that:
– Sabah’s rights are recognised,
– Sabah’s entitlement is legitimate,
– Putrajaya is committed to resolving the issue,
while continuing processes that create the perception of delay and resistance.
If the principle is accepted, then implementation should follow.
If implementation does not follow, Sabahans are entitled to ask whether the commitment is genuine.
8. THE TIME FOR HALF-MEASURES IS OVER
More than six decades have passed since the formation of Malaysia.
An entire generation of Sabahans has grown up hearing promises about rights that remain only partially realised.
A constitutional entitlement delayed for decades is not merely an administrative issue.
It is a question of trust.
And trust cannot be rebuilt through interim payments alone.
Trust is rebuilt when constitutional promises are honoured fully, transparently, and without further delay.
CONCLUSION
BoPiMaFo reiterates that Sabah welcomes cooperation with the Federal Government.
But cooperation must produce results.
Sabahans do not seek favours.
Sabahans seek transparency, constitutional compliance, and full disclosure of the figures used to determine what is rightfully owed to Sabah.
Until the Federal Government publishes the revenue figures, the calculation methodology, and the constitutional basis for the RM1.5 billion interim grant, legitimate questions will remain.
And until the 40% revenue entitlement is fully and conclusively implemented, Sabahans will continue to ask one unavoidable question:
“If Putrajaya is truly listening, why are Sabah’s constitutional rights still being fought over after more than sixty years?”
