By DANIEL JOHN JAMBUN, Pesident Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)
KOTA KINABALU: Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation expresses its support for Kepayan Assemblyman YB Chin Tek Ming’s decision to seek judicial review of the Sabah State Legislative Assembly Speaker’s rejection of his private motion concerning Sabah’s constitutional entitlement to 40 per cent of the net revenue derived by the Federal Government from Sabah.
This judicial review should not be misrepresented as a personal attack upon the Speaker, an attempt to undermine the dignity of the Sabah State Legislative Assembly, or an invitation for the courts to take over the functions of the Legislature.
As explained by YB Chin, the court is not being asked to determine the final amount payable under the 40 per cent constitutional formula. Neither is the court being asked to compel the Speaker to approve the private motion.
The narrower question is whether the decision to reject the motion was made lawfully, rationally, fairly and in accordance with the Standing Orders governing the Sabah State Legislative Assembly.
That is a legitimate constitutional question.
THE DUN MUST BE SABAH’S FIRST LINE OF DEFENCE
The Sabah State Legislative Assembly is the highest elected representative institution of the people of Sabah.
It should be the first institution to debate, examine and defend Sabah’s constitutional rights—not the last institution to remain silent.
YB Chin’s proposed motion reportedly sought disclosure of:
1. the total federal revenue collected from Sabah between 2022 and 2025;
2. the basis upon which Sabah’s 40 per cent entitlement was calculated;
3. the amount which should properly be returned to Sabah under Article 112C and Part IV of the Tenth Schedule to the Federal Constitution; and
4. the records necessary to enable Sabah’s elected representatives to determine whether the constitutional formula has been faithfully applied.
These are not frivolous, personal or partisan questions.
They concern potentially billions of ringgit belonging to Sabah and its people.
The 40 per cent entitlement is not a political donation, discretionary development allocation or act of generosity from Putrajaya. It is expressly provided for under Article 112C and Part IV of the Tenth Schedule to the Federal Constitution.
The Federal Constitution also expressly protects the privileges of State Legislative Assemblies under Article 72, including by providing that the validity of proceedings in a State Legislative Assembly shall not be questioned in court.
BoPiMaFo recognises that Article 72 presents a substantial legal issue which the High Court will have to consider carefully.
However, legislative privilege should not automatically be interpreted as placing every decision beyond any form of legal scrutiny, particularly where the question is whether the decision-maker possessed and lawfully exercised the relevant power.
Malaysia is governed by constitutional supremacy, not absolute parliamentary or legislative supremacy.
The courts have previously examined whether a State Assembly Speaker acted within the powers conferred by the relevant Constitution and Standing Orders. In the litigation arising from the Perak constitutional crisis, the Federal Court intervened where it concluded that the Speaker lacked the legal authority to suspend the Menteri Besar and members of the Executive Council.
The precise facts and legal issues in YB Chin’s case are different. Nevertheless, the broader principle remains important: holding the office of Speaker does not necessarily place the existence or lawful scope of the Speaker’s powers entirely beyond judicial examination.
A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE FEARED
There is a further question which must be answered.
Why should a motion seeking federal revenue figures and the basis of the 40 per cent calculation be rejected in the first place?
If the Federal and State Governments are confident that the entitlement has been properly calculated, the relevant figures should be disclosed and debated.
Transparency would strengthen public confidence.
Silence, delay and procedural obstruction will only deepen suspicion that Sabah’s elected representatives are being prevented from examining the true amount constitutionally due to the State.
According to YB Chin, his motion was submitted on 2 April 2026 and rejected on 29 April 2026. He subsequently wrote to the Speaker on 19 May 2026 seeking clarification, including clarification regarding the application of Standing Order 43(2), but reportedly received no reply.
Where an elected Assemblyman has attempted to obtain an explanation through the proper legislative process, it is understandable that he would seek judicial clarification after those efforts failed.
Natural justice and accountable government require more than the communication of a bare rejection. On an issue of such constitutional and financial importance, the reasons should be clear, recorded and capable of being understood.
THE 40 PER CENT CANNOT BE CALCULATED IN DARKNESS
The constitutional formula cannot be meaningfully enforced without disclosure of the relevant federal revenue figures.
Sabah cannot determine whether it has received 40 per cent of the relevant net revenue when the Federal Government controls the underlying information concerning:
– revenue collected from Sabah;
– allowable deductions;
– the meaning and calculation of “net revenue”;
– the applicable accounting periods;
– amounts already paid or credited; and
– any accumulated historical shortfall.
Without those records, Sabah is effectively being asked to accept Putrajaya’s figures without being permitted to examine the accounts.
That is neither transparency nor constitutional accountability.
The DUN should therefore be demanding a comprehensive revenue statement from the Federal Government, supported by audited figures, calculation methods and documentary records.
INTERIM GRANTS ARE NOT THE FINAL CONSTITUTIONAL SETTLEMENT
BoPiMaFo further cautions against confusing interim special grants with the full discharge of the Federal Government’s constitutional obligations.
An interim payment may provide temporary financial assistance, but it does not conclusively establish:
– the total amount constitutionally due;
– the correct formula;
– whether previous review obligations were performed;
– whether historical underpayments remain outstanding; or
– whether the Federal Government has fully accounted for all revenue derived from Sabah.
No political announcement, negotiated interim payment or development allocation can extinguish a constitutional entitlement without a lawful review, proper accounting and an agreement consistent with the Federal Constitution.
Sabah must not exchange a permanent constitutional entitlement for temporary political payments determined at the discretion of the Federal Government.
THE STATE GOVERNMENT MUST STATE ITS POSITION
The Sabah Government must now state clearly whether it supports the right of Assembly members to debate the 40 per cent entitlement and demand disclosure of the relevant federal revenue figures.
It is contradictory for the State Government to claim that it is defending Sabah’s rights in negotiations with Putrajaya while allowing attempts to debate those same rights in the Sabah DUN to be blocked.
The State Government should not fear a motion supporting Sabah’s constitutional entitlement.
It should welcome it.
Indeed, a united resolution of the Sabah State Legislative Assembly would strengthen—not weaken—the State Government’s negotiating position.
The question should not be whether the motion originated from the Government or the Opposition. The question should be whether the motion advances Sabah’s constitutional and financial interests.
On the 40 per cent entitlement, there should be no government side and opposition side.
There should only be Sabah’s side.
THE SPEAKER’S OFFICE MUST COMMAND CONFIDENCE
BoPiMaFo respects the constitutional office of the Speaker and recognises the Speaker’s responsibility to preserve order and apply the Standing Orders impartially.
However, institutional respect does not mean that decisions affecting the constitutional functions of elected representatives should be immune from explanation.
The dignity of the Speaker’s office is strengthened when decisions are transparent, reasoned and demonstrably consistent with the Standing Orders.
It is not strengthened by silence.
The courts must now be allowed to determine the legal questions independently, without political pressure or personal attacks against either YB Chin or the Speaker.
BOPIMAFO’S POSITION
BoPiMaFo stands with YB Kepayan Chin Tek Ming in seeking judicial clarification concerning the rejection of his private motion.
His action should be understood as an effort to uphold the ability of Sabah’s elected representatives to perform their constitutional responsibilities.
It is not an attack upon the Sabah DUN.
It is an attempt to ensure that the DUN remains capable of defending Sabah.
The central question remains:
If the Sabah State Legislative Assembly cannot demand the revenue figures, scrutinise the calculation and press for the enforcement of Sabah’s 40 per cent constitutional entitlement, who can?
The people did not elect 73 Assembly members merely to discuss administrative matters while Sabah’s greatest constitutional financial entitlement is kept outside the chamber.
The Sabah DUN must not become a silent spectator while the Federal Government determines, behind closed doors, how much of Sabah’s own constitutional revenue Sabah may receive.
BoPiMaFo therefore calls for:
1. the Speaker to provide the complete written reasons for rejecting YB Chin’s motion;
2. the Standing Order relied upon to be identified and explained;
3. the Sabah Government to declare its support for full disclosure of federal revenue collected from Sabah;
4. the 40 per cent entitlement to be debated openly in the Sabah DUN;
5. the relevant federal revenue figures and calculation methodology to be tabled before the Assembly;
6. an independent and transparent accounting of the sums due to Sabah; and
7. all parties in the Sabah DUN to adopt a united, bipartisan position in defence of the entitlement.
Sabah’s constitutional rights cannot be protected through silence.
They must be articulated, debated, accounted for and enforced.
The 40 per cent belongs to Sabah under the Federal Constitution. The Sabah DUN must be permitted to speak for Sabah.
